Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Coalfield Communities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am extremely grateful for this debate about the regeneration of the coalfield communities. This is the first Wednesday debate of the new year, which is a time for reflection and recollection—a time to draw lessons from the past but also to tackle the coming year with new hope and resolution. That is what the coalfield communities are doing. It is also what they were doing three years ago.
The House will recall that in October 1992 the then President of the Board of Trade announced the closure of 31 of Britain's 50 collieries. That decision was taken away for reflection and reconsideration, and in May 1993 the review was finalised, with consequences that are now plain to see: massive job losses in the coal industry and many collieries closed.
I have a new year's resolution of my own, which is not to alienate my colleagues. I know that members of the miners group are to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) at 10.30 this morning—I am sure that they too are tackling the new year with new resolution—so I shall be brief because I know that some of them want to contribute. Indeed, I hope that everyone connected with the coalfield communities will have a chance to speak this morning.
In Nottinghamshire, the consequences of the pit review are clear: six collieries have closed and 10,428 people who used to work in the coal industry have lost their jobs. Moreover, 4,100 people connected with the secondary industries have also lost their jobs, and there has been a loss of spending power in the local economy of £550 million a year—a significant amount.
Unemployment in Nottinghamshire is still unacceptably high and there is real deprivation. To be sure, unemployment has fallen, but I urge the Minister to look closely at the figures. In October 1992 unemployment in Nottinghamshire stood at about the national average. Now it is above it, and in certain pockets unemployment has risen against the trend. I am sure that some of my colleagues will mention the fact that unemployment in the coalfield communities is understated. I have looked carefully at a report by Sheffield Hallam university which suggests that male unemployment in the coalfield areas is in the region of 20 to 35 per cent. That compares with the national norm of 15 per cent., calculated on the same basis.
Even more significant is a comparison between national unemployment figures since October 1992 and unemployment in coalfield travel-to-work areas. Since October 1992, national unemployment has fallen by 17 per cent. In the Mansfield travel-to-work area over the same period, the percentage decrease has been just 7.1. In the Worksop travel-to-work area—another coalfield area—unemployment has fallen by less than 1 per cent.
So unemployment may be falling generally, but the rates differ according to area and the gap between the rich and the poor appears to be growing. The Government were aware that those problems would occur and in their announcement they offered an aid package worth £200 million over three years. I calculate that £30 million of that came to Nottinghamshire.
The first question that I want to ask the Minister is what research has been undertaken on that aid package's effects. I have heard him and his colleagues talk about inputs into coalfield communities. Three years on from the closure announcement, we should consider some performance and output measures. How far has that £200 million changed things in coalfield communities? I suspect that no research has been undertaken and that the reason for that is that the aid package was known to be inadequate at the beginning. It is short term—it will end during this calendar year. There is a scatter-gun approach—a shot at lots of moving targets, but no real strategy. There has been little co-ordination of that package.
I want to consider some of the measures, including enterprise zones. I hope that the Minister will visit the three enterprise zones in Nottinghamshire, announced more than three years ago. Not one brick has been laid on any of those zones and, three years on, not one new job has been created. That is the measure of the success of the Government aid package. That is the position in Nottinghamshire, but the figures are similar throughout the country.
I want the Minister to recall our debates, especially those on the Coal Industry Bill, when a number of us pressed the Government hard on what was to happen to British Coal's non-operational land, where there is a basis to create new jobs and which could be a cornerstone for new development land. Very little has happened. As the Minister knows, the Environment Act 1995 went through the House last year. That transfers liabilities for derelict land on to new owners. British Coal has been set different priorities. It has been told not only to dispose of the land and to create new jobs, but, clearly under section 11 of the Act, to get the best price and value for the land and to dispose of the liabilities.
I understand that almost 80 sites were to be transferred to English Partnerships, the regeneration agency, to create new jobs in England. Three years on, that land has not been transferred. Strong discussions are taking place between British Coal and English Partnerships about who is responsible for the dereliction and who will clear up the liabilities. Clearly, English Partnerships would like to take the land, but it is not prepared to pick up an unlimited liability. If the Minister wants to help coalfield communities, he could intervene in that discussion and ensure that that land comes on to the market straight away.
Smaller schemes that would lift the landscape and enhance the environment are also being held up. The county council in Nottinghamshire would like to acquire


six former colliery tips from British Coal. Discussions are well advanced. The Forestry Commission would plant the sites and take responsibility. We could create a new Sherwood forest that would lift the landscape, yet the deal is stuck because there are questions about who is responsible for the liabilities. We want the landscape to be lifted and to see change, but because of arguments about liabilities, that deal too is stuck.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My hon. Friend touched on a point about the environment and the landscape. I know that the same is happening in Northumberland and parts of Durham. On the landscape, we have seen nothing but opencast mining. All the deep mines have closed, all the jobs have been lost and, all over the place, there have been a load of planning applications for opencast mining, which is a blot on the land.

Mr. Tipping: It is clear that opencasting can be a blot on the landscape. It should be allowed only where there is local support and where it will lead to environmental improvement. The problem with opencasting is that people want to make a profit out of it and that the profit is to be made out of big green-field sites. That again leads to further dereliction in coalfield communities.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I am sorry to intervene, but the issues that my hon. Friend is talking about especially affect regions such as mine, where the mines have been closed for well over 20 years and where, in response to Durham county council's inquiries, developers have identified, in my constituency alone, almost 40 potential opencast sites. If those sites go ahead, and even if they do not, with current policy, there will be a blight not just on people's living environment, but on the attempts of both the public and private sectors to attract new industry that will grow in the community for years to come.
Despite the fact that it has been 20 years since the pits closed, we still have an enormous task to bring jobs that will give the region a future. We have the blight of opencast, on top of the amazing problems that we had early on from dereliction, although the landscape in our county is now green and beautiful. To see it destroyed again would be a dreadful indictment of Government policy.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, we do not want planning blight in coalfield communities. People have lived with dereliction; they now aspire to something better. Secondly, she makes a strong point that the regeneration of coalfield communities will not be brought about by a three-year aid package, which is short term and limited; as she says, the process will last for 20 years or perhaps longer. It is certainly a generational thing.
As well as derelict land, there is a problem involving organisations such as the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. During the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1992, we were promised that CISWO-associated recreation and community land would be transferred to CISWO and to the National Playing Fields Association. I know that there have been considerable discussions about that, but three years on, that package has yet to be delivered.
Again, the issue involves the liabilities. Both CISWO and the NPFA are charities. They have been advised by the Charity Commission not to take on land where there is a liability. Those recreational lands and sports fields are important for coalfield communities. Again, this issue needs to be unlocked quickly.
English Partnerships aspires to take on 80 sites from British Coal. They may be the best sites. It is also responsible for distributing derelict land grant. There is a feeling among some local authorities that, as the owner of sites and the distributor of grant, English Partnerships may focus derelict land grant on its own properties.
Local authorities have a long history of tackling urban decay and derelict sites. They seek assurances that derelict land grant will continue to be available to them. They do not want to be in a position where they have acquired derelict land and where they and their council tax payers become responsible for the liability. They are happy to work in partnerships—they have done so for years—but they still want access to derelict land grant. I hope that the Minister will give those assurances.
I hope that the Minister will also give assurances to English Partnerships, which is chaired by Lord Walker, a man noted for intervention. His intervention with English Partnerships has perhaps been ineffective. I know that he has pressed hard for extra resources to tackle the tasks that are before the agency. I note that he has been unsuccessful in the Budget. Next year, English Partnerships' budget is to be cut by £7 million or 3 per cent. By the end of March 1999, its budget is to be cut by £26 million or 12 per cent. What hope does that provide for the coalfield communities in the new year? Can an assurance be given that such communities will be given priority by English Partnerships?
British Coal Enterprise is another economic development agency which has operated successfully in coalfield areas since 1984. It is the only agency which focuses entirely on coalfields. It is to be privatised on 31 March this year. While it has been in the public sector and can receive funds it has been a conduit for European funds. It has received £10 million from Europe. Will the Minister clarify whether there is a danger that once it is privatised that £10 million could be clawed back by the European Community?
Although I oppose the privatisation of British Coal Enterprise, I also seek an assurance that the sale proceeds—about £20 million—will be reinvested in the coalfield communities. Surely it is only right and equitable that the proceeds of the sale of an agency that has worked for the coalfields should be reinvested there. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the guidelines for the sale of British Coal Enterprise. Is it merely to be sold to the highest bidder, or will he ensure that the new private sector owner gives assurances that it will continue to focus on and give priority to the coalfield areas?
European funds, too, are important to coalfield communities. We are now two years into the RECHAR II programme and the current objective 2 programme. Despite that, money is not yet trickling through to projects in the Nottinghamshire coalfield or in other coalfield areas. Part of the reason for that is staff shortages. Let me draw the Minister's attention to the Government office for the east midlands—GOEM. I am not criticising the staff who work there because I know that civil service staffing


has been frozen for the past three years and that to the year 1998–99 there is to be a further 12 per cent. cut in civil servants.
Letters have been sent from the Government office to local authorities asking for local authority staff to be seconded to the Government office to deal with grant applications. In fact, it is even worse than that. I have in my possession letters from temporary staff at the Government office in Nottingham who have written to local authorities saying that their contract is nearly up. They have worked at that office for two years and are about to be entitled to full employment rights at the office, but they are to be laid off. They are asking Nottinghamshire county council to employ them and second them back to the Government office. That is short-termism in the extreme. A total of £30 million of European money could be drawn into the Nottinghamshire coalfield, but the Government are not prepared to pick up the bill to fund the civil servants necessary to bring that money in. In essence, that is my complaint. We have a short-term solution from the Government for a long-term process that will not be resolved easily.
One of the interesting things about the Budget was the way in which capital spending was slashed. The Minister, with his knowledge of local authority spending, will understand that capital investment is long-term investment. It produces value and resources over a period of time. I believe strongly that if we are to invest in coalfield communities, we must invest in capital projects. I draw the Minister's attention to the Robin Hood railway line in Nottinghamshire. I am delighted that the line, which will connect Nottingham to Worksop and run through the Nottinghamshire coalfield, has been funded by the Government. An announcement of a new tranche of money was made only this week. However, I remind the Minister that in May 1993 the then Secretary of State, speaking to the Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce, promised that Government money would be available to complete the line. We are now three years on and the line still has not been built. It would be a recognition of an approach to the coalfield if that money was forthcoming.
I am keen to see a road to recovery in Nottinghamshire. I want to see a road that links the M1 and the A1 and which runs through the Nottinghamshire coalfield opening up new development sites. That is a widely perceived view in the coalfield and I am extremely disappointed that the first leg of it, the Rainworth bypass, was refused funding in the transport policy and programme announced before Christmas. The lack of funding for that bypass means that the southern and western bypasses in Mansfield, also essential to the recovery, will not be completed before the 21st century. Investment in infrastructure is an essential part of coalfield recovery.
Let me remind the Minister about the former British Coal housing stock which was transferred to housing associations. There are pockets of such housing throughout the coalfields. There are 2,000 former British Coal houses in housing association ownership in Nottinghamshire. They are in a deplorable condition and need renovation and refurbishment. Will the Minister lift the embargo that was put on the Housing Corporation to provide grant to refurbish those properties? That would help to regenerate those communities.
I remind the Minister also about the National Mining museum in Yorkshire which was given national status fairly recently. That museum received a great deal of help

from British Coal but when that was no longer forthcoming, Government grant was made available for three years to continue the museum. That grant has nearly expired and the museum faces serious challenges. It is looking to the national lottery to survive and expand, but it will take a change in the rules and criteria if it is to be eligible. Our heritage is as important as our future and I hope that the Minister will look closely at that issue.
People who live and work in coalfield communities are pragmatic, hard-working and resilient. They can take bad news but they cannot take uncertainty. They have had a series of bad knocks over the past decade, but despite that, they are still working for a better future. What characterises coalfield communities is that parents want better for their children.
All over the coalfields people are working for change. The Ollerton and district employment forum has come together in a private-public sector partnership which has had some success with the Ollerton pit site and the Boughton pumping station. In Bilsthorpe local people have got together to form CHUBB, which is a resource centre for the community and the unemployed. Its future is blighted by the lack of money from the European social fund. In Newstead residents are working together to refurbish the housing stock and regenerate the village. Change will happen; it is inevitable, but it is a long-term process.
Last autumn the North Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council produced its evaluation of its coalfield action plan. It demonstrates success but also highlights some failures. I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity to look at it. It concludes that while much has been achieved, much more needs to be done.
Mining communities and the mining industry, in Nottinghamshire and across the country, feel betrayed by a Government who simply walked away from the promises they made to Notts miners. The Government cannot similarly walk away from the coalfield communities. It is not sufficient to make short-term investment over three years. The TEC's evaluation is that new resources, new strategies and renewed partnerships are needed for many years to come.
It is essential to invest in coalfield communities. They need better than they have now. We should be supporting them and investing in their future.

10 am

Sir Jim Lester: I apologise for the fact that I have to attend a Select Committee meeting this morning. I shall, therefore, speak only briefly and, unfortunately, will not be present for the Front-Bench speeches.
I welcome the debate on the Nottinghamshire coalfield communities and thank the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) for initiating it. He asked some pertinent questions which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will answer.
We all support the hon. Gentleman's new year resolution to make regeneration the watchword for our local society, but despite what he said, and for the very special reasons that anyone born and bred in Nottinghamshire understands, I cannot think of any other industry going through a period of change that has had the same individual and community support as the coal industry. No other industry that has gone through decline


and change—for example, the textile industry—has had anything like the support that has been given to the coal industry.
I made my maiden speech from a spot not far from the place where the hon. Member for Sherwood is now sitting. It was in February 1974, when there were two coal mines in my constituency—Moor Green, famous for all that D. H. Lawrence wrote about it, and Babbington, which became famous in 1984 for a rather less pleasant reason. Both mines were worked out; neither was closed because of recent decisions. Although the mines have been worked out, many miners still live in my constituency. Many of them have transferred to different pits. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, they have shown great resilience in moving from pit to pit to stay in work.
Now, my principal connection with the coal industry is resisting the development of an opencast site at Shortwood farm—a green-field site—because of all the problems that it would create. My hon. Friend the Minister has already had an opportunity to look at the site. Although I understand that he cannot comment on it today, he has shown that he understands what it would be like to watch a green-field site being dug up for the next 10 to 20 years.
I hope that the hon. Member for Sherwood will welcome the Eastwood Phoenix project in our constituencies and that of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). It is a new departure in coalfield regeneration. Eastwood, too, is famous for its connection with D. H. Lawrence. It is not in decline as a result of changes in the coal industry, but it is stagnant. The project, introduced by Broxtowe borough council and enthusiastically supported by me, has been accepted by the Government because it aims to prevent decline, regenerate Eastwood and help it to remain a market town for the community around it.
I warmly welcome the regeneration of the Moor Green site in my constituency, where new factory units providing employment for miners and other people in the area are being developed. We must recognise that careful analysis of the problems, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood, followed by correct action at the right time and in the right place, is the way to regenerate and prevent decline in areas that once depended totally on a vital coal industry.

Mr. John Cummings: Other hon. Members have used a broad-brush approach when speaking about the demise of coalfield communities. I want to focus specifically on Easington colliery—the last colliery in the Durham coalfield to close. It lies in the north-east of the Easington district, which has a population of 98,000 people. The area has been devastated by the demise of an industry which in 1951 employed 81,000 people in the county.
In the Easington district alone, more than 10,000 jobs were lost between 1984 and 1993, and it is estimated that a further 10,000 were lost in related industries. The appalling levels of economic, social and environmental deprivation, which derive from the area's former dependence on the coal industry, are shown in statistics

that make rather gruesome reading. They come from a document prepared by Easington district council for Easington colliery's rural challenge submission.
Unemployment stands at 14 per cent. The rate for men is 21 per cent., almost one third of whom are categorised as long-term unemployed. That figure does not include the more than 12,000 people who are on long-term sickness benefit after spending a lifetime in heavy industry. Easington is the third poorest district in the country in terms of average disposable income. It is worth reflecting on the fact that new jobs coming into the area pay only between £2 and £3.50 an hour.
Easington has the 19th highest standard mortality rate in the country, some 47 per cent. above the national average. Life expectancy is three years below the national average. Less than half of households own a car. About 41 per cent. of households have a resident with chronic illness. Between 1971 and 1991, the district lost about 11 per cent. of its population. The percentage of youngsters staying on at school is the third lowest in the country. More than 200 hectares of land is derelict.
As I said, Easington was the last colliery in the Durham coalfield to close. It has a population of just over 5,000. It was and is a typical pit village. It was built under the shadow of the pit pulley wheels and was closely associated with the pit head and buildings. Not surprisingly, its problems mirror those of the whole district. When I talk about Easington, I could be talking about any of the former coal mining villages in the district, which once numbered 13.
Where information is available at ward level, the signs are that the problems are somewhat worse than I have described. For example, population loss between 1971 and 1991 was considerably higher at 20 per cent.; car ownership levels are lower and the main economic activity rates are the sixth lowest in the county. As in all colliery villages, the colliery was the centre of economic and community life—at Easington, it was so for more than 100 years. The colliery provided not only jobs but leisure, social facilities and housing. It nurtured a collective sense of identity which made it a community in the real sense of the word.
With the demise of the colliery, many hundreds of colliery houses have been left to God and good neighbours. Several housing associations, acting quite responsibly, have moved into the area and spent a considerable amount of money, but their efforts are being frustrated by individuals and companies who have also moved into the area—to gain some form of tax relief. They have no intention whatever of underpinning the real investment of the housing associations. That matter will have to be addressed in the colliery village of Easington.
When the colliery closed in December 1993, with the loss of 1,400 jobs, it marked the end of an industrial era for the county and the start of a search for a new and exciting future, but the Minister did not accept the rural challenge submission and we have fallen at the first hurdle. Perhaps the system of bids for rural challenge development and the single regeneration budget 2 should be re-examined. It is run on a competitive basis, but the problems in Easington ought not to be left to chance or, indeed, a form of national lottery.
Too many of the problems faced by the local community are inextricably linked to the demise of the coal mining industry, which has left a legacy throughout


the district, and especially in Easington, of economic, social and environmental problems. I have mentioned high unemployment. No fewer than 77 per cent. of all jobs in Easington colliery were lost when the pit closed. There is a very poor and limited range of alternative employment opportunities. Due to the mining culture and the colliery's dominance of the local economy, there is a lack of an enterprise culture. The long-standing dependency on the pit has meant that there is no local post-16 education or training facilities in the colliery village. We have very low levels of educational achievement. There is a mismatch between the skills of the work force and the needs of local and regional employers—and, indeed, employers who are considering coming into the area.
We have a very high and continually rising crime rate, an increase in the fear of crime, a very high incidence of substance abuse among young people, a lack of facilities, especially for young adults, and poor and declining health standards. Colliery housing is in very poor condition, there is a lack of suitable accommodation for the young and the elderly and there has been no private sector development for new housing for the past 40 years. All of those problems emanate from the village's dependency on the pit, the colliery and the National Coal Board.
In the colliery village of Easington, there are 27 hectares of derelict colliery site. Despoiled beaches are a product of colliery waste tipping. In excess of 1.5 million tonnes of solid waste was dumped along the coastline each year. Thankfully, the bid submitted to the millennium fund has been successful and we hope to tackle the problems on the beaches, but are we to be left with beautiful beaches crowned with derelict housing, housing in need of renewal and derelict cliff sites? One does not equate to the other.
The coal mining industry sustained the village economically and socially, but it bred a culture of dependency that stifled enterprise and exacted an enormous price in environmental and health terms. I well remember talking to my illustrious predecessor, Manny Shinwell, on becoming involved with the Labour party at the beginning of the 1960s. I said, "Manny, why have we no car industry in Easington? Why have we no real manufacturing base in Easington?" The answer was quite simple. He said, "As long as the nation requires coal and as long as the people of Easington are there to dig coal for the use of the nation, you will never ever have attractive manufacturing industry in the district of Easington. Coal miners would undoubtedly leave the mines to work in a more attractive environment if they could." The cards have always been stacked against us in coalfield communities.
In the light of the problems that I have just outlined, there might be an inclination among Ministers and Departments to write off Easington village as a viable entity. None the less the community consultation workshops have proved that, although the village might have lost a sense of identity, it has retained its self-esteem and its dignity. There is a growing feeling of optimism in Easington colliery community, which requires and looks forward to positive change. A local community-led generation partnership, which has a clear vision of the future, has been established.
I have mentioned the down side of Easington colliery and district, but it has many physical attributes that could be exploited if Ministers and Departments would only take note. I invite the Minister to visit the area at any time.

It lies in a very pleasant rural setting on the coastline—the only coastline in County Durham. There is easy access to the coast, where improvements are being pursued with the help of the millennium fund. Areas of open space could be used by the community and, indeed, industry. There is good access to the A19, an east coast railway, a major road network and it is very close to centres of employment on Tyneside, Wearside and Teesside.
The problems are such that demands on all of those resources are extremely high. Competition is strong and there is much emphasis on gap funding. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts to reverse the decline in the village to date, on-going initiatives are disjointed and inadequate, and the rural challenge scheme might have provided the key to overcome some of those difficulties.
Only towards the end of December did the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration come to Easington and designate six enterprise zones, for which we are extremely grateful. We are looking forward to those enterprise zones being filled very quickly with new, exciting and modern firms. However, may I draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly? The link road proposed to feed the Fox Cover site from the A19 has not been accepted by the Department of Transport. That enterprise zone will therefore have no real link with any major means of communication. No doubt the Minister will hear more about the matter in due course. Nevertheless, we are extremely pleased that the enterprise zones have been designated.
The single regeneration budget 2 bid has also failed recently. Are Ministers really serious about regenerating mining areas? I remember the Minister's colleagues in the then Department of Energy repeatedly painting a rosy picture of the situation and saying that regenerating coal mining areas through a range of approaches would be emphasised, but not one penny piece has been spent in Easington, or indeed—perhaps—anywhere else in the country. The people in coalfield communities are looking to the future. We have established a superb working relationship with English Partnerships, and we hope that great things will come from it in the not too distant future.
I must tell the Minister that the issues are too important to be dealt with through competitive bidding. Why not give a little back to Easington, which has served the nation so well over the past 100 years? I remind the Minister of the awful tragedy of the Easington colliery disaster in 1951. The community of Easington has paid in blood, sweat and tears. The Government should respond accordingly to the needs of that community. I await some positive response because it is now time for the nation to recognise that we have served it well and to give us back a little bit so that we can help ourselves.
Easington is undergoing a period of traumatic adjustment. We are searching for a new role, image and function. The village faces a considerable task if the transition from a working pit settlement to a thriving rural village is to be achieved. I am sure that, by virtue of our resilience and optimism, which is founded on our collective sense of identity, we will rise to the challenge. We look to the Minister to fulfil his obligations and his colleagues' promises to achieve that transition.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) was able to put coalfield regeneration on the agenda.
The idea of regenerating the coalfield communities was proposed three years ago, after the Government's closure of the 31 collieries—it was mainly talk on their part. The initial statement was made in October 1992, when the former President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—now the Deputy Prime Minister—was keen to tell everybody, including hon. Members, not to worry about the 31 closed pits because the Government were to institute schemes to enable people to find work, and that everything in the garden would be rosy.
Three years later, we are participating in a debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has listed the lack of achievement. He comes from an area that most people in Britain—certainly those in the coalfields—recognise as one of the most prosperous among those represented by the National Union of Mineworkers. Nottingham has always had not only the attraction of the pits, but several large firms such as Boots, Plessey, Players and Raleigh. People moved out of the pits and into some of those industries when the money in the pits was bad. Now they do not even have that chance.
The Government do not properly understand that the situation has changed. When the pits were closed in the 1950s and 1960s, people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood were able either to transfer to another pit or to go to one of the large firms in and around that coalfield. The situation is much bleaker now because they can no longer move into expanding firms and there are hardly any pits to work in.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about the unemployment figures being understated. The Government have never taken into account the fact that those over 55 who received the make-up money from the Department of Energy are not included in the unemployment statistics. We can reckon that about 100,000 ex-miners have not been included in the unemployment statistics for the very reason that they took part in that compensation scheme when their collieries were closed. That is why male unemployment in many pit villages, certainly in my constituency, is as high as 50 per cent. Counts have been made in Shirebrook and surrounding areas to prove that.
One would have thought that, in the aftermath of the massive pit closures, there being no employment prospects, the first thing that the Government would have done would have been to tell the Department of the Environment, which made up the budgets for local authorities, that a little extra should be put in for the coalfield areas, especially given what their spokesmen said from time to time about giving those areas a lift. They have never done that. By and large, the standard spending assessment of councils in coalfield areas, including the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood spoke about, has not improved—in many cases it has gone down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is almost certainly to be in government shortly—in view of all the Conservatives who are transferring to the Opposition Benches, that might happen sooner rather than later—so I am not just speaking to the Minister. When my right hon. and hon. Friends form their Government, I want them to accept that the

SSA and the grant paid to local authorities in deprived areas that have been hit massively by unemployment must be adjusted so that we can regenerate them much more speedily.
Why have the Government not tried some sort of pilot scheme for housing redevelopment in the coalfield communities when that idea has been foremost in our minds? We know that, according to their policy, they allow local authorities to build hardly any houses—at the last count, 1,750 were built in a full year. The Government could have encouraged local authorities to build housing in those areas where unemployment is high. That matter should also be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
It is important to have this debate because my hon. Friend can then go back to the leader of the Labour party, soon to be the Prime Minister, and tell him that the people in the coalfields want a stake in society and they want it to be sirloin. That is what we are asking for. We want to readdress the local problems.
I am not making a case for preferential treatment; I just recall what happened in the 1960s when we had a Labour Government. I remember as a local authority councillor when my own colliery, Parkhouse, near Clay Cross, closed down. I went down to see the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), along with Tom Swain, my Member of Parliament. We wanted some additional help to redress the balance that had been upset by the pit closure. Many miners simply transferred to other pits, but for those who did not, we wanted to set up a scheme to assist the Erewash valley, which included several local authorities running between the borders of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
My right hon. Friend granted special assistance to the area with the result that, when Parkhouse colliery was closed, the Clay Cross councillors were able to announce that we had managed to obtain discretionary grants. As a result, 700 people walked down the same pit lane that used to lead to Parkhouse colliery and went instead into a factory, Ashton Containers, and several other new factories on that site. That is how it was done in the 1960s. I want to impress on the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that it is not impossible to overcome the problems of the coalfields with regional assistance. We did just that in the 1960s to offset the effects of pit closures.
My next point was not raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, because he reduced what he might have said so that others could speak. We have heard a lot of talk about cleaning up the rivers in coalfield areas—in Durham, in Scotland and in every other part of the coalfields. For the past two years, we have heard people talk about rivers being filthy as a result of pit closures, as polluted water finally finds its way into the water courses.
Why is there not a big programme for cleaning up rivers, which would create some work? If the Government were bright enough, they would realise that, politically, it would be a smart thing to spend some money on, and would get rid of some of the unemployment problems at the same time. Much could be done in all the coalfield areas, but not enough has been done.
One thing is certain—I do not want the Minister or anybody else to tell me that opencast is a substitute for deep mines. We all know that opencast has a peripatetic


work force. Firms do not usually recruit locally because they bring most of their people with them. We do not want to hear any of those barmy suggestions about opencast creating employment in local areas.
That is not all. Opencast operators dig a big hole—they dig very deep holes now—take out the coal and leave the hole behind to be stuffed with all sorts of waste, possibly including nuclear waste if they can get away with it. There will certainly be lots of toxic waste. We do not want that "solution" to the problem. That is why, in Derbyshire, we have opposed opencast wherever possible. Not only can opencast not provide work but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and others said, as a result of all the toxic waste being dumped in the holes, it might be counter-productive in terms of employment possibilities.
In my opinion, there is another reason why opencast must be opposed. We shall soon be in government. As I said earlier, people want a stake in society. We might want to reopen some of the 31 pits that were closed, but we shall never be able to do that if opencasting has taken place. We all know that opencast working creates instability in the surrounding ground, so we shall never be able to sink a mine where opencasting has taken place 300 ft down.
It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras understands that, as soon as Labour is returned to power, we must take the collieries back into public ownership and stop any proposed opencasting in those areas.
It is possible to reopen some of the pits. I do not claim that that would be easy where opencast mining has taken place—it would be almost impossible—but where there has been no opencast mining, many of the pits could be reopened. In the past, we did not think that that was possible, but after the miners' strike of 1984–85, when the pits had been closed for 12 months, although many of us had said that they would never be reopened, they were reopened. We found that it was possible to mine in the same places again. It is important to bear that in mind when we get back into government.
My remarks are addressed not only to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will be on his bike at the next election, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to be here to listen to my hon. Friend's speech, but he knows that, in a few minutes, I am going to meet my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to discuss such matters, and other things.
My hon. Friend must bear in mind the fact that we are talking about intervention in the economy. We cannot afford to let market forces operate any longer. In the 1960s we proved that it was possible to minimise the devastation caused by pit closures. We created work by intervening and directing firms here, there and everywhere. We shall need a growing economy, because we cannot direct firms if there is no movement. That must be at the top of the agenda.
I tell my hon. Friend and others that, when we get into power, we must remember that we are talking about jobs. The new Labour Government must understand that jobs are at the top of the agenda. When we have found that creating jobs is possible in some of the devastated coalfield communities, that will become the practice for everybody else too.
If the new Labour Government are searching for a big idea, they need look no further than to say that, if we get rid of the problems in the mining communities, that could set the pattern for all the other areas of high unemployment in Britain. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will measure up to that task; in a few minutes, we shall ask the Leader of the Opposition to measure up to it, too.

Mr. Bill Etherington: It is always a great pleasure to be involved in any debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Unfortunately, today I have to follow him, which until now I have always managed to avoid by speaking before him.
I shall be relatively brief, as I wish to raise only one problem—a problem that will not go away, because it is becoming a war of attrition. I am talking about mine water pollution. At one time it seemed that that was mentioned almost every other day in the Chamber, but over recent months the front has gone relatively quiet. However, the problem has not gone away.
We have had vague promises from Ministers, but we need some firm commitments and a definite programme laid down. We need not platitudes but a proper framework to deal with the problem. A long-term problem requires a long-term strategy, and I am afraid that at the moment we do not have that.
I declare an interest in that I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. I also spent many hours in the Committee on the Coal Industry Act 1994, so I have quite a bit of knowledge about mine water pollution, which the Committee spent several days discussing. Unfortunately, we do not seem to be much further forward now, so I have some suggestions for the Minister.
The role of the Coal Authority should be clearly defined and put on to a statutory footing. There should be a commitment to and a preparation of a phased and effective programme of remedial work to prevent pollution from getting into our rivers and water supplies. In conjunction with that, the Coal Authority's funding should be maintained at the current level until such time as the problem has been fully evaluated and solved.
We would also like the water regulator to be required to carry out on a regular or rolling basis an audit of existing and potential incidents of pollution from abandoned mines. I do not like having to repeat myself, but sometimes one has to: the problem will not go away. Our beliefs were stated in the amendments that the Opposition tabled both to the Coal Industry Act 1994 and to the Environment Act 1995 when they were being considered by the House.
The Minister will be well aware that there have been many problems with the water supply in Yorkshire. I shall not go into those now, but he will also know that in the north-east we have recently had the twin problems of flooding and water shortage. So all is not well in the water industry. There are many problems ahead, and I hope that they will not be exacerbated by a lack of action to deal with potential pollution.
The issue is fairly simple when we get right down to it; the coalfield communities have suffered for many centuries in order to create wealth not only for themselves


but for the nation as a whole. But the nation as a whole did not suffer the problems caused by that creation of wealth. It would be totally immoral and utterly wrong if the coalfield communities had to pay for the pollution, through either council tax or water charges. The pollution was caused by work undertaken for the benefit of the nation as a whole. It should be paid for by the nation as a whole through the Government.

Mr. Frank Dobson: At the previous general election—particularly in the Nottinghamshire coalfield—Ministers promised that there would be a great future for the coal industry. That was in April 1992. But like a lot of other Tory promises, it proved to be worth not a light because, in October 1992, the present Deputy Prime Minister—the great one-nation Tory—announced 31 pit closures and the expected loss of 30,000 jobs. When he made that announcement, the right hon. Gentleman could not even be bothered to suggest any other way of employing the people who might lose their jobs.
The revulsion that the announcement caused throughout the country forced the Government to phase the closure programme, although they did not stop it. The Government promised help for the mining areas, but that help has been insufficient and slow in coming. As with much else that the Government do, they give with one hand in a publicised way while seeking to take things away with another. That has been their general approach to the coalfield communities.
When European money under the RECHAR programme was promised before the election, the Government tried to snaffle it from the coalfield communities to put into the general rate fund to reduce the poll tax and council tax liability in Tory places such as Westminster and Wandsworth, until the EC rightly insisted that the money was spent in the areas for which it was intended. Since then, the Government have kept up their approach. They have provided some help, but it has been inadequate and late and its benefits have been more than offset by the harm caused by coal privatisation.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are high levels of unemployment, with between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. male unemployment in some small communities. There have been massive reductions in the take-home pay of people who have other jobs—again, the figure is between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. There has been a massive reduction in the number of people in the active population, and therefore there is economic decline as people have no money to pay out. Pubs are closing in mining areas.
There is an increasing threat to the environment, and there have been delays in the clearing up of dereliction. There has been pressure to increase opencasting and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said—there has been a big increase in mine water pollution. There has also been a massive increase in crime—a 300 per cent. increase in three years in some of the areas affected by the closures. The Government must take some responsibility for that because, while there is no excuse for any young person turning to crime, a young person who sees the

Government stealing his dad's job might think that stealing is the order of the day. Poor job prospects have undermined social cohesion. Parents who are out of work lose their authority over the rest of the family, leading to social break-up.
It is believed that the Government saved £200 million by the pit closures, and they got another £1 billion from the sale of the coal industry. The coalfield communities think that they ought to have that money, and why not? Their jobs and their work built up the assets which were sold. But they are not getting a prompt or sympathetic response from the Government, whose response has been characterised by incompetence, delay and a lack of interest.
One example of that is the establishment of enterprise zones. The Government's record in that area has shown that they have acted slower than a two-toed sloth. We were promised enterprise zones by the present Deputy Prime Minister more than three years ago when he announced the pit closure programme. The impression created was that there would be dozens of them, but we have ended up with three—one in the Derne valley, one in Mansfield and one in Easington.
The closures were announced in October 1992, but the Easington enterprise zone was designated in December last year—more than three years later. The Government have tried, as usual, to blame the European Commission, but the real cause of the delay was the coal industry privatisation. There was internal rowing between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, because most enterprise zones had been based on publicly owned land. The Government were proposing to stop the land being publicly owned and to sell it off as part of privatisation. That has led to the delays, which have been described in The Sunday Telegraph as an "absolute shambles".
The Government's top priority was coal privatisation, rather than the needs of the coalfield communities. That has had the effect—as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) pointed out—of deferring useful investment developments in coalfield areas. Companies that may have been thinking of investing have deferred that investment, because they thought that if they waited until an enterprise zone was established, they might be able to invest on better terms. That is another example of the way in which the Government's incompetence and slovenly approach is damaging the coalfield communities.
Another thing which must be borne in mind is that it is not just in terms of special provision that the coalfield areas are not getting the help that they deserve. They are being robbed on a day-to-day basis in terms of the grant which the Government pay out to every local authority in the country. The coalfield communities are not getting the grants that they deserve. Everybody accepts that if ex-coalfield areas are to survive and prosper, they need better standards of education and training. But in every single one of them, what is currently threatened is not an expansion or improvement in education and training but a cut because the Government are cutting the funding. That is being done for the benefit of Westminster.
The funding that Westminster city council receives per pupil to help pay for education in Westminster should be applied as generously in some of the coalfield areas. If that were so, Nottinghamshire would not be


contemplating having to reduce the number of teachers—it would be able to increase the number of teachers by 4,000. County Durham would be able to increase its number of teachers by 2,400, while the figure for Derbyshire would be 4,100. But that is not happening, because the rotten stinking Government are shifting the money into the pockets of their friends in Westminster and are taking it away from everyone else.
As I have explained time and again, all of this springs from the fact that the Government regard Westminster as the fourth most deprived place in Britain, although nobody in their right mind believes that. The House heard my hon. Friend the Member for Easington movingly describe the extent of deprtivation in his constituency and in his district, which is the third poorest in Britain in terms of average income. On the index of deprivation that the Government have drawn up which states that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place, Easington is 338th. I do not know whether that is a tragedy or a farce, but it is certainly unfair, rotten and entirely typical of the Government.
After all of the pit closures, Newark and Sherwood—represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping)—is 156th on the index of deprivation. Barnsley is 319th, while Bolsover—represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—is 331st. If Bolsover received the same help from the Government towards its council spending per head of population as Westminster, the council in Bolsover would not collect any council tax at all—it could pay out a rebate of £1,015 to every council tax payer. That shows the extent to which the Government are fiddling the grant system.
It is not just a question of the special help being insufficient, as the Government short-change the coalfield communities day in, day out. There are the problems of derelict land, and it has been pointed out that the takeover by English Partnerships may result in English Partnerships putting money only into the sites that it has taken over from British Coal.
In the Environment Act 1995, the Government emphasised the concept of the polluter pays, but we must make sure that that concept is not used to the disadvantage of people living in the coalfield communities. If English Partnerships or the Government said to a local council that they would not give the council derelict land grants until it received money from the polluters, that would cause a great deal of delay. It would not be the polluter who was paying, but the polluted. We have to make sure that measures which are basically steps forward are not used to damage coalfield communities.
The Government continue to encourage opencasting. One third of all the coal that is produced in the country is opencast. Opencasting is ugly, noisy, dirty and unhealthy and it deters other investment in coalfield areas. None of the Ministers present would want, I certainly would not want and I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would want an opencast mine in our area or at the end of our back garden, but the Government wish it on tens of thousands of people in the coalfield areas.
There is also the problem of mine water pollution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood described earlier. In proceedings on both the Coal Industry Bill and the Environment Bill the Labour party made sensible proposals to ensure that the Coal Authority

took full statutory responsibility for dealing with mine water pollution, which can be so damaging. It damages the environment and, like opencasting, it is a threat to councils which seek to encourage investment in their area.
All the dangers and problems that we have described are building up for the coalfield communities. Many of them are inherited from the days of absentee thieving coal owners. What we have now is an absentee Government who do not give a damn about the people who live in mining areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have just listened to a traditional rant from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) which showed an appalling lack of understanding—his traditional lack of understanding of standard spending assessments, education funding, the revised mineral planning guidance 3, the planning system and revenue support grant. The hon. Gentleman laughs, but if what he suggested were applied he would be laughing on the other side of his face for his constituency. However, we are not talking about Holborn.
The subject of today's debate is important and important issues have been raised. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised one aspect of the vista, although there is much more to it. I regret that I have only a few minutes and will be able to touch on only one or two of the positive things that are happening.
I was interested in some of the points made by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). I shall read them tomorrow, consider them and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always sees a light at the end of the tunnel and that it is an oncoming train every single time. I was interested to hear him load the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with so many promises that he looked like the hunchback of Notre Dame sitting there nodding to them. Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, he will never be in a position to implement or even answer for them. He will probably remain where he is, in opposition.
We need to emphasise some of the positive points. While I recognise that it has taken some considerable time, particularly with initiatives involving Europe, to put some of the positive ideas into action and make finance available, they are now under way. The coal industry is now privatised, with 29 former British Coal pits in the private sector—many more than were anticipated by the pessimists. They are successful. I am not picking on the hon. Member for Sherwood—every Back-Bench Member looks at his salary patch—but I am sure that it will hurt him to know that according to a newspaper report yesterday on what is received by the mining community, he would be financially better off working for the privatised mining industry than he is sitting on the green Benches at the back.
The success of privatisation is worth recognising, but time does not allow me to push and promote it. We need to look at the efforts that are being put in nationally by the Government. The Government recognise the needs and the deprivation of coalfield areas. Mention has been made of the £200 million package. It was put in place to help communities affected by job losses. It includes £75 million provided


through training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service and £75 million for the three-year English Partnerships programme of factory and site provision. The programme cannot be implemented overnight, as even the hon. Member for Sherwood recognises. We have provided £30 million-worth of other measures and £20 million for various strategic projects.
Regardless of some of the points that have been made, the delay in setting up enterprise zones has been caused by difficulties with the European Community. Considerable efforts have been put into the matter and enterprise zones are now under way. New zones have got off to a good start. To give just one example, in east Durham, 250 jobs are already coming in this year.
Unemployment has fallen nationally by 730,000 since December 1992. It was down again last month. Let us take the east midlands, the hon. Member for Sherwood's area. He mentioned the Robin Hood line. The Government's contribution has increased, as he said, to £9.6 million to meet the cost increases and the cost of the new station at Kirkby in Ashfield. That is welcome and it needs to be pushed. Stages 1 and 2 of the line are now open and doing well. Stage 3 will be funded in 1997–98, subject to the Department of Transport criteria on value for money. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is the correct way to go forward.
The North Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council coal plan has brought in £14.8 million as part of the £75 million that went to TECs. Recent consultants' evaluation has shown that the North Nottinghamshire TEC coal plan has delivered several thousand jobs and training places and has reduced unemployment by between 3,600 and 4,500. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assessment. That is an assessment and it shows that regeneration is happening. NNTEC still has some £800,000 to spend during 1996 plus surplus funds generated by coal-related activities. Those funds will be used in future coal activity.
The coalfield areas fund has been mentioned. It will provide £163,000 of grant to two projects in the Newark and Sherwood district. One of them, the Gwendoline Grove training centre in New Clipstone in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood, has produced nine business starts, 88 training places and 50 small businesses. With the growing economy, small businesses now have an opportunity to grow. That is positive.
A round 1 single regeneration budget grant of £1.5 million is under way in the Sherwood part of the Newark and Sherwood district. The total programme value is £8.6 million. It is set to create 1,690 jobs, 300 new businesses and 4,300 sq m of commercial floor space. That is all extremely positive. Jobs and chances for growth have been created, but the hon. Member for Sherwood did not mention that.
A round 2 SRB grant of £1.13 million has recently been announced to regenerate Newstead village. The total value of the programme is £3.3 million. It will result in 4,000 sq m of new business space, another 80 new jobs, 250 improved houses and so on. A total of six SRB programmes are already under way in the former east midlands coalfield area. That is £28.5 million of SRB grant, levering in £146 million of other public and private funding, thus amounting to a total regeneration package of almost £175 million. That was conveniently forgotten by the hon. Member for Sherwood.
The forecast output from those six SRB programmes is 19,000 jobs, 12,500 people trained, almost 28,000 sq m of business floor space and 500 hectares of land reclaimed. It is happening. Three further SRB programmes were approved in the east midlands under round 2, including one in Newstead village, again in the Sherwood constituency. That is £1.13 million of SRB, giving a total programme value of £3.3 million with leverage.
We created new assisted areas under regional selective assistance in 1993 in the wake of the mine closures. There have been 114 offers of grants since then and £12.6 million of RSA will bring about £130 million of investment and create or safeguard almost 5,000 jobs. The biggest RSA grant of £1.7 million went to Johnson Controls in Mansfield—an American company that has built a new factory and is already employing 450 people.
Unemployment in the area has dropped dramatically. It fell by 5,700 in 30 months—it will extrapolate like a logarithmic graph. I will write to Opposition Members to explain as they obviously do not understand what such a graph is.
I can touch on only a fraction of the various points—the importance of the coalfield areas, the industries there, the hope for the people, housing for the people, the housing investment programme and the housing action grants. Endless volumes of money are going into the areas, with new ideas, strategies and partnerships. There is new hope and there are new jobs and better education. To listen to the gloom and doom described by Opposition Members is to deride the considerable efforts that this nation is making for those communities.

Waste Disposal

11 am

Sir Roger Moate: First, I must declare an interest as I am the parliamentary adviser to the British Paper and Board Industry Federation. Just in case I am accused of trespassing on the new rules about advocacy, however, I must make it absolutely clear that it is very much a constituency matter that has caused me to seek this debate on waste disposal and recycling or incineration and it is certainly a matter for the county of Kent.
I should like to take this opportunity to put on record the fact that the borough of Swale, which covers my constituency, can describe itself with some justification as being among the greenest in Britain in terms of recycling. The steel mill at Sheerness is among the most advanced in Europe and recycles 1 million tonnes of steel a year. The United Kingdom paper mills and St. Regis paper mills at Sittingbourne and Kemsley are at the forefront of European technology and also recycle about 1 million tonnes of paper each year.
More than most, the area understands the importance of securing more recycled materials in an environmentally acceptable way. We now face a proposal that is unacceptable environmentally. The draft Kent waste local plan proposes a waste-to-energy incinerator plant at Kemsley, near Sittingbourne, to deal with a large part of the county's municipal waste. It is to be one of four possible proposed sites to handle up to 1 million tonnes of waste each year, as we steadily and rightly move away from reliance on landfill. I suspect that that story is familiar in other parts of the country.
The Government recently published a White Paper, Command Paper 3040, "Making Waste Work", which is, as yet, undebated in the House. That is not a criticism, because it was published only in December. The way in which Government policy relates to proposals such as the one for Kemsley makes it right for the House to study that classic example and the consequences for local areas of Government policy—the way in which such policy translates down to local areas. This House is not a local planning inquiry and hon. Members would be impatient if one tried to treat it as such, but I hope that they will forgive me for dwelling briefly on the Kemsley location, for the reasons that I have just given. I must emphasise that any proposal for a large-scale municipal waste incinerator located at or near Kemsley, or at nearby Ridham, would be totally unacceptable on environmental grounds.
Swale borough council has made its total opposition clear in a cogent and powerful argument against the case. Local residents are united against it and landowners and industrial landowners are opposed, as am I. This is a matter for the Minister. The Government office for the south-east, GOSE, is also critical of the plan. Our area is part of the Thames gateway planning framework which, according to the GOSE document,
seeks to bring forward a new environmental standard for the area in order to raise perceptions and encourage new sustainable development which contributes positively to the environment which has suffered in the past.
In that respect, GOSE calls the waste plan "disappointing".
I repeat that we are part of the Thames gateway planning framework. The work of introducing new environmental standards for the area has been helped in

my locality by a remarkable committee called the Kemsley and district pollution liaison committee, which was formed five years ago. It comprises representatives of 2,000 local residents, the borough council, the National Rivers Authority, local industry and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It has met and has achieved a great deal in an area that has suffered from pollution and a perception of low environmental standards. The House will understand, therefore, why there is such opposition to the proposal. Apart from the host of other environmental objections, the fact is that the plant, like all large plants of the kind, could generate up to 400 vehicle movements per day.
On the opening day of the inquiry into the draft plan, the inspector asked the county council three crucial questions: why incineration, why four locations and why those four locations? I hope that I am not being unduly optimistic in perceiving from those questions that the inspector shrewdly and quickly realised the misconceptions on which the strategy was based. I hope that he will respond accordingly and will assist our county in a major rethink of policy. I also hope that he will take into account debates such as this, as well as the on-going debate that is taking place in the country. I hope that he, and we, will reject the almost blind acceptance that seems to be fashionable—the belief that incineration is, or should be, the principal means of disposing of mixed municipal waste as the principal alternative to landfill.
I shall give some of my evidence, and it is evident that such an assumption is wrong. Better recycling options are available. They are better, cheaper, tried and tested. If Kent and other counties become committed to the long-term contracts needed to support such large and costly incinerators, which have capital costs running into hundreds of millions of pounds, we could be making a strategic mistake that will have profound consequences for many years to come. They will include: first, an appalling waste of valuable, recyclable materials that should and could be recycled; secondly, the generation of large-scale lorry movements to support large, centralised plants; thirdly, excessively high gate fees per tonne of waste, which could consequently waste millions of pounds per annum throughout the country; and, fourthly, the continued fear of dioxin emissions. As for the latter, whether it is perceived or real, the fear will be there. All that is true for Kent and I think that it is also true for the rest of the country.

Mr. Llew Smith: On the possible emissions, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have been confronted with the argument that incineration is a safe form of disposal. How can people arrive at that conclusion when one considers that all the chemical compounds that are produced as a result of the incineration process have still not been identified? Without such information, how can people arrive at the conclusion that incineration is the best method of disposal? Perhaps you could elaborate and tell the House what responses you have had when you have asked such questions.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must address the Chair and that interventions should be short.

Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Gentleman has an important point about not merely what scientists say today but the continuing fear about what will be learnt. I shall


return to the subject of dioxin emissions, although that is not the key part of my remarks. We have received assurances, but the fears, the debate and the controversy will certainly continue.
I was about to say that we should not criticise waste disposal authorities for having moved rapidly to consider the incineration option on a large scale. That has, indeed, been the prevailing mood. As we move away from landfill as the answer to waste disposal, it is not surprising that such authorities have grasped that option, nor should they be criticised for doing so. We should now pause, however, and re-examine other technologies that are on offer. One wants to be balanced and sensible about the matter. We must have a balanced approach and different situations require different solutions.
I am sure that incineration and recycling technologies can and should work together, although different areas and industries will advance different arguments and favour different methods of handling waste. A debate such as this will inevitably involve generalisations about incineration versus recycling, but I see nothing wrong with examining the principles on which we are operating.
We are, I think, right to fear that the incinerator philosophy has gone too far, and to believe that it should be checked and that, at the very least, all incineration proposals should be tested rigorously against the available recycling options. Kent tells us:
There is a growing national and international recognition that incineration with energy recovery is the only acceptable method currently available for disposing of household waste in the quantities required…Recycling is essential but for the foreseeable future is likely to be an adjunct to mass treatment like waste to energy rather than a substitute.
That reflects the statement on page 11 of the summary of the White Paper "Making Waste Work":
there is substantial potential in England and Wales for the expansion of waste to energy power generation particularly in urban areas where it is the main alternative to disposal by landfill.
I emphasise that last point, because I do not agree: waste-to-energy generation should not be seen as the main alternative to landfill.
Even the 17th report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution—which is widely cited as favouring incineration—says the opposite. Although it deals with incineration and shows how it could be made acceptable, its conclusion in chapter 10 states that energy recovery should be pursued only when waste cannot be recycled. In the so-called waste hierarchy—as perceived by both the European Community and this country—recycling ranks above energy recovery. We should remind ourselves of the existence of that hierarchy, and favour recycling whenever it is a practical option.
The speed of change seems to have caused people to overlook the new technologies that have become available. In trying to solve the problem of emissions, we have tended to ignore other developments in the world. I understand that many integrated recycling plants—mechanical plants that do not use incineration—are currently operating, some in this country. Such plants take a mixed waste stream—the contents of the familiar black sack or wheelie bin—and separate the waste mechanically. They process paper, card, metal, plastic, glass and kitchen and garden waste—charmingly

described as "putrescables"—leaving 10 or 20 per cent. that can be used for compost or building blocks, or for landfill. A modest amount is always likely to be used for landfill, but the proportion is vastly different from what we are discussing today in regard to either incineration or recycling.
I understand that Berkshire is currently deciding on the use of just such a plant. The specification is impressive: the plant has a design capacity of 175,000 tonnes, and will recycle all the municipal waste that I have described, leaving a very small residue. The result will be splendid, if it can be achieved—and there is no reason to doubt that Berkshire takes practical considerations into account before signing such contracts.
What is remarkable about the plant is that it is such good value, as well as being environmentally better and more popular than the alternatives. The capital costs of such plants are much lower—which means that the gate costs will inevitably be lower. There need be no debate about toxic emissions, because no incineration is involved.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Rather than examining a plant that is still at the planning stage, the hon. Gentleman should visit West Yorkshire, and Leeds in particular. It is one of the leading-edge authorities, which has developed a first-class recycling technology. We need not discuss theories and plans; the hon. Gentleman should come to see what is already being done, and could be done even better if money were invested in recycling rather than the alternatives.

Sir Roger Moate: That bears out what I have said about the availability of alternative technology. It is puzzling that a number of authorities still seem to base their strategies on incineration. Although I shall resist the temptation to examine more waste disposal facilities, I agree that we should concentrate on what is happening in practice.
I was describing the cost advantages of recycling. I have found it difficult to obtain the precise figures during the short time in which I have studied the subject in the context of our county plan because, understandably, they are said to be commercially confidential; some local authorities, however, need to know the figures in order to make strategic decisions. There is a conflict between the need for commercial confidentiality and the need for transparency.

Mr. Llew Smith: I have had considerable experience of the problem of commercial confidentiality in attempting to obtain information from incineration companies, as have local authorities that would like to provide the information. Surely the answer to such difficulties is a freedom of information Act, which would enable the hon. Gentleman to obtain the type of information that can be obtained in the United States through pressing a button in the local library.

Sir Roger Moate: There will always be a need for commercial confidentiality, but once a local authority has entered into a contract the figures ought to be publicly available, because the charge payer is footing the bill.
I have heard that the gate fee for the Berkshire plant is about £20 a tonne. That is not much more than the landfill costs, including the new landfill tax. I am told that the gate fees for large incinerators can be as much as £30 or £40 a tonne, or even £50. I am also told that recycling


plants can be viable at about 50,000 tonnes per annum, with a gate fee of about £25 a tonne. Whatever figure we take, however, there appears to be a large differential in favour of recycling rather than waste-to-energy plants, which must be very large to be economically viable. A differential of perhaps £10 can mean charge payers in any one county or waste disposal area having to pay millions of pounds a year. That is serious money, so we must get it right and not make mistakes.
Small local plants—the 50,000 tonne variety that I have described—have many other advantages. For instance, they avoid one of the main environmental problems: the large-scale movement of heavy lorries that is involved in nearly all major operations. The smaller and more localised the plant, the fewer problems—which generate understandable opposition among local residents—will be caused. Given the Berkshire example, I do not see why Kent should not have a network of smaller recycling plants, involving no burning of waste, minimising lorry movements, maximising the recovery of raw materials and reducing landfill by 80 or 90 per cent.
The arguments might be very different if we were convinced that waste-for-energy plants could produce low-cost electricity on a large scale, at a competitive price and in worthwhile quantities, which would make them viable in the long term. I confess that I should be happy to receive much more information on whether we are producing low-cost electricity compared with other forms of energy generation, and whether we are producing it on a large enough scale. I suspect that we are producing extremely expensive electricity that is sustained by the high gate fees that local authorities must pay to send in their waste and by temporary financial support by levy associated with the non-fossil fuel obligation.
To replace all the recyclable materials that are destroyed by incineration requires five times as much energy as can be generated from their destruction, so it is hardly the right way to save energy. It takes much more energy to recreate paper, metals and other materials, which should be recycled. It would be helpful to know the figures and to have a range of statistics to allow local authorities and hon. Members to judge the financial advantages or long-term commitments of those options.
I have not dealt with dioxin emissions and do not intend to do so. I readily believe that scientific and technological controls can be imposed to eliminate most dioxins, but whether that cost can be met and permanently sustained I do not know. I also readily believe that the extremely stringent new emission controls will greatly reduce emissions. HMIP recently published a review on dioxin emissions, but I am not sure whether that is the end of the story. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could say whether he expects further reassurances, reviews or statements from HMIP on that point, because those would influence decisions now being made on incinerator proposals.
Whatever reports are issued, people will continue to fear pollution, perhaps justifiably, with all the attendant controversy and local objections. Nothing will remove people's worry about the possibility that new pollutants will be put into the atmosphere. It would be much better to avoid the whole argument by seeking a better recycling option, with all the advantages that I set out earlier.
I make no apology for returning to where I began—Kemsley in my constituency. There are overwhelming arguments against the development there. Industry and the

community, reinforced by Government officers in the south-east Thames gateway planning framework, have been striving successfully to raise environmental standards. The House will understand why any new developments that resurrect the spectre of unhealthy emissions will be particularly resented. I hope and believe that any such threat will soon be removed with regard to the Kemsley proposal and that our county, encouraged by the Government, will now pause and ensure that smaller-scale recycling plants, not large incineration plants, are at the heart of local plans for disposal of municipal waste.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on introducing this debate. It proves that the best way to proceed is to make a speech in the House on a matter that starts with a constituency interest, as that leads one to do a great deal of homework. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on grasping all the essential principles of the balance between waste recycling, incineration and burial. Those of us who have long been interested in this subject believe that a balance is important. We shall always bury and incinerate waste. Intelligent and highly sophisticated incineration that produces energy is much better than the incineration that we have seen over a long period in this country, which simply burns waste and produces toxic emissions.
Those of us who have passionately supported recycling for a long time want the Government to back it in terms of both tax policy and a direct lead from the Department of the Environment to make recycling both possible and probable. That needs firm Government action. Although I congratulate the Government on some aspects of their White Paper, I believe that they have dilly-dallied for too long compared with our European neighbours, who have followed best practice. We need to move fast not only to encourage recycling but to ensure that it is the first option to be considered.
I suggested tongue in cheek that the hon. Member for Faversham should come to see Leeds and West Yorkshire. If all local authorities in Britain were as good as the best, we would be a long way down the line. We must strike the right balance, and recycling must always be the first option. The hon. Gentleman was spot on when referring to energy costs. Once waste is transported long distances, all the benefits of energy conservation are wiped out. It is self-defeating to transport glass, aluminium or other materials for recycling over long distances.
I shall keep my intervention brief. The hon. Member for Faversham is welcome to join the parliamentary group for sustainable waste management to carry on this debate. It is about time that we had a serious debate of the White Paper in the House. As usual when the House debates an important subject that has such a great effect on the lives of our constituents, there is a deplorable lack of press interest. I hope that we shall have a continuing robust debate on this subject.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)


because we are subject to the same waste disposal plan. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that the best debates start with a vested interest in a matter concerning one's constituency. Within a few miles of each other in my constituency are two of the four incinerators, so it will not surprise hon. Members to know that my constituents are concerned. They have not gone in for spectacular lobbying but have set up an organisation in the village of Halling to think of alternatives. They did not simply say, "We do not want the incinerator in our back yard." They have called their organisation "Waste-Not-21—A waste disposal plan for the 21st century".
Although I rise to speak against incineration because we have insufficient assurances about it, I am well aware of the problems of waste disposal in a sophisticated packaging and waste producing country. The United Kingdom shares that problem with all its European colleagues and internationally with enormous countries that produce a great deal of waste, such as the United States.
My constituents all attended that conference on a Sunday afternoon, which is not a great afternoon for inviting people. However, they are working people and they were all available, as I was. My constituents had the benefit of the knowledge of Professor Paul Connett—a professor in chemistry from St. Lawrence university, New York—about the dangers of producing dioxin. He pointed out the dangers of an amount of dioxin the size of a pinhead. He was not trying to frighten my constituents to death, but chemists worry about the carcinogenic properties and genetic effects of dioxin. The people who are considering incinerators today will not be around to defend their actions if we discover problems in later years. Chemists also worry about the effects of dioxin on breathing. The action group wanted to bring the breath of life to Halling, not destroy it.
The meeting also had the benefit of hearing Professor John West, who is responsible for a company called Environmental Reclamation International. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham mentioned, that company is currently providing recycling facilities near Reading, in Berkshire. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Huddersfield that he has very good recycling facilities in his county. More information about recycling would be helpful to my constituents.
Professor West has instigated recycling approaches in Europe, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to advances in Europe. However, not all the initiatives in Europe have been advances. I recall that Germany got into such a mess with waste disposal that it put an extra levy for waste disposal on every package and every bit of waste. It then paid money to export waste from Germany. That is not the right way to go—to export one's waste elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to the recycling initiative that Professor West initiated. When Professor West came to that Sunday afternoon meeting and spoke to my constituents about the recycling initiative, it sounded to me to be a very good alternative. It produced no toxic hazard, and the residue was only 10 per cent. Even with incineration, some residue is produced which has to go into landfill.
My constituents have, for some years, been well aware of the hazards of transporting substances from one area to another. My constituency has the most desirable mineral deposits in north Kent and consequently, for years, we have had lorries carting valuable chalk for cement over our roads, mainly over the infamous A228. The waste for the proposed incinerators would also have to travel over that road. My constituents are worried about shifting the waste by road to the two incinerators. Ironically, it would not even be their waste. The process is centralised, and waste would come from other constituencies and other district council areas.
Kent county council held a public inquiry last autumn. Mr. Hargraves, on behalf of the Halling action group, went to give evidence. Professor Connett also flew in from New York to give evidence on behalf of my constituents about the chemical hazards of incineration. We are awaiting the inspector's report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham asked the Minister to let him know about other reviews with evidence about incineration. I understand that the chief medical officer is carrying out an investigation into the dangers of dioxin. My constituents are awaiting the result of that investigation because it must affect the public inquiry held by Kent into incineration.
We are committed to considering all methods of dealing with waste, and as the 21st century approaches we shall have more and more waste. However, we must be sure that the policy we choose is not one that we shall regret or change our mind about in a few years. We have the time now to study the options before we embark upon a course of action. I have carefully considered the quite tough targets for reduction in the production of waste set by the Department of the Environment. As the chairman of the all-party group on the retail industry, I also know that that industry has quite a burden to reduce waste considerably. That is the first thing we have to do.
I expect that housewives—and there are not many of us in the Chamber—will be buying their washing powder and liquid in biodegradable refills, so that there are not so many plastic bottles to get rid of. When plastic is burnt in incinerators, it becomes lethal. If plastic is not burnt and instead is dealt with in other ways, it does not produce such disastrous pollution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to how much energy could be produced by incinerators. That is a powerful argument. If one could get rid of waste by recycling it into energy, that would be good, provided that the chemical reactions were acceptable. The figure quoted was 18 MW of electricity. However, we have not been told how much energy would be used to produce that 18 MW. Surely we need to know that, if the arguments about the possibilities of creating energy are to be believed.
Even if we can find a safe way in which to incinerate which produces enough energy to make it worth while and valuable, it still produces exceedingly toxic ash, which has to go into landfill. The United States has reduced the landfill requirement by 50 per cent. by recycling alone. The proposed incinerators would reduce the landfill requirement by 60 per cent., but by what we regard as a rather doubtful method.
I wrote to Kent county council because I was extremely worried about the proposals for two incinerators in close proximity along the river at Halling and at Kingsnorth.


The council assured me that no planning application would be considered until the inspector had made his report after the inquiry, at which time the issue of whether there should be any incinerators would be decided. The report on the safety of incineration was not yet available so I was quite reassured that no action would be taken until it was available, and the chief medical officer had reported on the dangers of dioxin.
I was concerned to learn this week from the Kent director of transportation and highways that he has advised his staff that they should start to prepare contracts. It seems that the director is accepting the principle of the incinerators before the matter has been decided and before the valuable reports are in the hands of my constituents. When they have received the reports, they will know that, if incineration is the option decided on, every effort has been made to ensure the safety of the system.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that there will be no decisions about contracts or even any move towards contracts until the two reports are in place and we know for sure what is happening. I also hope that my hon. Friend will ask his Department to look at Professor West's interesting initiatives on recycling.
We have had much waste disposal in north Kent over many years. As soon as mineral holes have been dug, they have been filled with waste, with the consequence of heavy traffic for my constituency. My constituents are incensed. They are prepared to make arrangements for their own waste, but they do not see why north Kent should be the repository for waste from around the county. Not least among their arguments is that to cart waste from other areas into the Medway towns adds to the cost of waste disposal. It also places a heavy burden on an already over-burdened transport system.

Mr. William O'Brien: This debate is an extension of our debates on the Environment Act 1995. As a result of those debates being guillotined, we were denied the opportunity to discuss many issues that we would have liked to discuss. This debate on waste and recycling is significant and it is a matter in which I have a great deal of interest. In West Yorkshire, we have the largest landfill and reclamation site in the area, following the quarrying and mining there. West Yorkshire generates substantial waste because of the industrial opportunities there and domestic waste is generated as well. This debate is, therefore, important.
To say that we must do something about reducing the amount of waste in landfill is an understatement. We must do everything that we can to reduce the amount of waste that is being deposited in landfill sites. Valuable materials can be recycled and more emphasis should be placed on recycling waste.
Recently, there have been traumatic discussions about the packaging industry and about how the levy that is being set by the Government should be imposed. Sadly, we could not find a suitable system for imposing the levy. I understand that a compromise has now been reached with the V-WRAG people as the result of a division within the group. The decision is not unanimous, but the compromise is being accepted and we hope that it will work. It has to be reviewed in two years' time. That is the kind of debate that we should be pursuing. I hope that the Minister will refer to the V-WRAG proposals on

packaging waste and I hope that he will tell us how he considers the new compromise will help to reduce the amount of packaging and to encourage the recycling of packaging waste.
The landfill tax is designed to reduce the amount of waste that is deposited in landfill sites. Some aspects give rise to concern. It seems that the landfill tax, which is due to be implemented in October, will be applied across the board without further consideration of the consequences for areas where waste is generated beyond the control of man. I refer to our waterways.
The Aire and Calder navigation, which is still in use, flows through Normanton. It has to be dredged to ensure that boats can travel along it. We are advised that the waste from the dredging, which will be deposited on the land, will be subject to tax. We have a ridiculous situation. Beyond the control of anyone in the Chamber or anyone in the Government, waste will be generated and it cannot be recycled. Some of it will be valuable as cover at the landfill sites and for base material. However, paying £7 or £7-plus for each tonne of waste generated by dredging our waterways will be a tremendous burden on the inland waterways business.
I therefore make the point strongly to the Minister that some consideration must be given to that anomaly. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the levy would apply to all waste. I make the plea this morning that consideration should be given to waste generated by our waterways in the form of dredged material. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic on this point because the tax will have a tremendous impact on our waterways.
The Institute of Wastes Management is working hard with Members of Parliament, the Government and local government to improve communication with the public about waste management. In an October 1995 publication entitled "Communicating with the Public", the institute says:
There is a genuine need for the Waste Management Industry to change its attitude towards communicating with the public.
The institute admits that it has not communicated properly with the public on the control of waste, the deposit of waste and the collection of waste. It now wants to correct that. It continues:
The collection of our commercial and domestic waste is generally regarded positively, as a public service. There is still, however, a need to keep people informed of such things as changes in the service or proposals for recycling.
All those involved in waste depositing and recycling are now making a specific effort to work with the House, the Government and local government to ensure that people are made aware of the advantages that can develop from recycling waste. Many members of local authorities are as keen on recycling waste as we are in the House and many people work voluntarily to help recycle waste. As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, people in local government have a substantial interest in recycling waste. Parliament should give all possible support to those in local government who are interested in the matter and who are determined to ensure that waste is both recyclable and recycled. We should give all possible support to the packaging industry because it works hard to reduce the amount of waste to landfill.
In the House, two all-party groups are considering that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred to the sustainable waste


management group. We also have the waste glass recycling group, which meets frequently to discuss ways to improve the recycling of waste materials.
Incineration was mentioned earlier, but certain products of waste will have to be recycled. I refer in the main to waste tyres. We have tried to use tyres for building walls and making barriers, but there are so many of them that disposing of tyres is a problem.
In Yorkshire, Sheffield city council has introduced a scheme for disposing of waste tyres, and I consider that the experience that Sheffield has in generating heat from waste will benefit the communities of Yorkshire and Humberside especially, and those in a wider area, in disposing of waste tyres.
We have a wide area to cover. The problem is not confined to plastic bottles and paper packaging. We, as Members of the House, should analyse a host of other materials. The Government should support at all levels the efforts of people who are bringing pressure to bear to reduce the amount of waste to landfill. Recycling brings benefits.
I hope that, following the debate, the Minister will respond to some of the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. I hope that the Government will adopt a positive approach by sustaining the argument in all sectors that waste and recycling issues matter as much to the Government as to people in local government and in the industry.
I am pleased to take part in the debate. I hope that we may have further debates on that subject, because of its importance.

Mr. Robert Banks: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on initiating the debate. It happened that we both sought permission to initiate Adjournment debates on the same subject, and I am pleased to join him in today's debate and release my Adjournment debate for tomorrow night to another colleague.
It is important to balance recycling, incineration and landfill. Instead of considering specific elements in isolation, we must consider as a whole all those different ways of tackling the escalating volume of waste.
The debate gives me an opportunity to welcome the Government's recently published White Paper, "Making Waste Work", which will stand for many years as a guide to best practice in the waste management industry. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment on the work that went into the preparation of that report.
I shall concentrate on the contribution to effective, integrated waste management of energy from waste plants. By "energy from waste", I mean the process whereby household waste is burnt in modern plants to create energy and reduce the volume of waste going to final disposal, which was spoken about earlier so eloquently.
The White Paper rightly recognises the role of energy from waste and its increasing importance in the United Kingdom. It says:

using waste of one type or another to supply useful energy is a well established method of obtaining added value before final disposal and will increasingly represent the best practicable environmental option for many wastes".
At the moment, as hon. Members know, landfill remains the dominant route for disposal in the UK, and accounts for about 85 per cent. of the 35 million tonnes of municipal solid waste. However, in many parts of the country, such as London and the south-east, the status quo is an option that is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain, owing to the scarcity of landfill spaces.
Several years ago, the village of Rufforth in my constituency was chosen for a new landfill site by North Yorkshire county council. When the site was identified, there was a great deal of opposition from local people, as might be imagined. The plan involved creating a hole in the ground and using the soil from the hole to cover the waste as it gradually filled up. It has a 13-year life. That emphasises the shortage of landfill sites that confronts local authorities. We must ensure that other options, including waste to heat and recycling, are considered thoroughly.
The White Paper sets important new targets, which will aid the transition to more beneficial uses for unavoidable waste. When considering the role of energy from waste plants, I emphasise that I do not mean old-style waste incineration. Such plants, largely designed and built in the 1960s, are being rebuilt or phased out and replaced by modern energy from waste power stations, which have greatly enhanced environmental performance to set alongside their energy recovery capabilities. However, as the White Paper says:
the incinerators and their gas cleaning plants will operate to substantially higher technical and environmental standards".
My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) mentioned dioxins; I shall discuss them shortly.
Energy from waste plant capacity in the UK should now enjoy a time of expansion. It is thoroughly sensible to use waste to create energy, and especially to provide electricity and heat to people who live near such plants. The overwhelming environmental advantages of treating municipal solid waste in modern energy from waste plants instead of landfilling raw waste are become more widely accepted, although there is a great deal of ignorance on the subject.

Mr. David Evennett: I am very interested by what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that we should therefore hold a full debate on the White Paper as soon as possible, so that all of the issues may be discussed in a longer debate?

Mr. Banks: I would strongly welcome a full debate, because many more hon. Members than will be able to speak today will want to take part in it. There is scope for a wide-ranging debate on this subject.
We can draw on evidence from the Royal Commission on environmental pollution—the organisation that proved that using energy from waste plants is the best practicable environmental option. Developments in Government policy are starting to create a more level playing field, so that environmental considerations, not only those of cost, influence local authorities and other people charged with finding waste management and disposal solutions.
There was huge local opposition to the proposal for a landfill site at Rufforth, which led ultimately to the local authority managing the site extremely well. People no longer complain—the site is well screened by trees.
A modern energy from waste plant operates at South East London Combined Heat and Power—SELCHP—which is a power station in south-east London that I visited recently. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench today. I apologise to her for not extending to her the courtesy of knowing that I was going to visit that power station before doing so.
Major redevelopments are in hand in Coventry, Edmonton, Nottingham and Sheffield. An energy from waste power station is nearing completion at Tyseley in Birmingham and another is under construction at Cleveland.
Older-style incinerators are being substantially upgraded to meet new environmental standards set by the European Union and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. SELCHP is an especially good example. It is an excellent building. I commend the architects on using their design skills to create an attractive building. People who live close by no longer complain, because they were consulted at all stages of that development and it provides them with heat and power. I pay tribute to the developers of that plant, who discussed the design and practicalities of that plant exhaustively with all the people who live in the vicinity.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I must place on record, because my constituents would expect it, that many of the people who have newly purchased homes in the district did not know of the presence of that facility when they undertook to make their purchases and are very unhappy about what they regard as a facility that affects the market value of their property. There are other people who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, were properly consulted and are happy with it.

Mr. Banks: I am interested to hear that observation. I shall deal later with the point about the construction of buildings. If the building did not have a chimney, I dare say people would not be so worried. If they knew the facts about the cleanliness of the atmosphere in their area, and the remarkable steps that are taken to clean the flue, they would perhaps come round to a different view.
Energy from waste has important environmental advantages. It reduces the volume of waste, avoids the environmental impact of gas and contaminated liquid seeping from raw municipal solid waste in landfill sites and conserves fossil fuels. It displaces pollution that would result from alternative generation and reduces significantly greenhouse gas emissions, which are with increasing confidence thought to be a cause of global warming—a point that we need to discuss in a wider debate. I hope that such a debate will be held.
Energy recovery from waste in high-technology plants is recognised world wide as safe, efficient and environmentally beneficial as part of an integrated strategy for sustainable waste management. There still remains, however, a considerable challenge for the private sector, in partnership with local authorities, to introduce schemes that surmount the contractual, planning and public attitude hurdles new plants may face.
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and for Medway referred to the difficulties with local opinion when such proposals are made. NIMBYism is, unfortunately, a strong deterrent in the UK, notwithstanding the significant success of SELCHP.

I would advise my hon. Friends' constituents who are concerned to visit SELCHP and see for themselves what the plant looks like. They could also be briefed on what it is doing.
A subsidiary of Powergen is seeking approval to build a Thameside energy from waste power station in the borough of Bexley to produce 130 MW of electricity and consume 1.2 million tonnes of waste. It is faced with the same problem of winning over local opinion to approving the project.
In addition to the waste strategy White Paper, the non-fossil fuel obligation and landfill tax are the chief economic instruments that are helping to ensure that the cost of waste disposal via energy from waste plants is comparable with that of landfill. That is a sensible Government policy to have instigated.
The energy from waste industry, through the Energy from Waste Association—the industry body that promotes best practice and consults the Government and local authorities on all issues relating to energy from waste—has strongly argued that combustion residues should be landfill-taxed at the lower rate: £2 as opposed to £7 a tonne. It is important that the benefit of the tax in closing the gap between the cost of landfill disposal and energy from waste is not destroyed by the cost of disposal of the ash residues that result from the combustion of waste as a renewable fuel.
Ultimately, energy from waste can succeed only where it can demonstrate greater environmental benefits than other available waste management options. This key point, obvious enough to waste management professionals, is often missed by the industry's opponents. It simply will not do to criticise energy from waste against some imagined absolute standard of desirability.
It is important to look at energy from waste in the context of other forms of waste management and recycling. In considering the waste hierarchy, the term given to grading waste management options in terms of their environmental benefit, energy from waste, materials recycling and composting should be placed on the same level after reduction and re-use. To place, as some do, recycling on a higher level than energy recovery wrongly suggests that recycling—this is where I depart from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham—is invariably of greater merit than energy recovery, and should be pursued to the exclusion of an integrated strategy including energy from waste.
The Conservative party is a broad church, and I think it good that we can debate these matters and disagree with each other about them.
It should be remembered that even the hierarchy has its limitations. Re-use may not have a lower environmental impact than, say, recovery. A holistic approach surely offers the best prospect of achieving sustainable waste management solutions at affordable cost. The White Paper takes that line.
Indeed, some experts are beginning to take the argument even further. In a recent paper, Dr. Lyndhurst Collins of Edinburgh university argued that recycling paper, specifically, could lead to an increase in the level of carbon dioxide. He says that new assessments show that incineration of waste paper to generate energy is a viable and more beneficial option for the environment than recycling.
My point is that energy recovery and recycling ought to be seen not as two mutually exclusive options but as parts of an integrated waste management programme. In the UK, we achieve low levels of both—7 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively—yet other countries are demonstrating how it is possible to have far higher levels both of recycling and of energy recovery. For example, Germany recycles 18 per cent. of its waste, with 36 per cent. energy recovery; Switzerland recycles 29 per cent., with 59 per cent, energy recovery; and Denmark recycles 23 per cent., with 48 per cent. energy recovery.
I believe that we need to motor fast with the policies of recycling and energy from waste. Currently, the UK's performance in terms of recovery could and should be improved, and that would have a beneficial effect on rates of recycling.
The Government are examining other ways to give improved guidance to local authorities, as part of a plan to achieve higher recovery rates. In addition, given the shortage of suitable sites for energy from waste plants, the Government should strengthen regional co-operation and co-ordination so that the provision of new facilities is not left to the vagaries of the local planning system. The White Paper should give an important boost to the development of regional solutions.
I am conscious of the fact that time is evaporating and that the Front-Bench spokesmen are anxious to speak, so I shall turn finally to the subject of dioxins—an important element in the equation. New concerns about dioxin emissions from energy from waste plants were raised last year by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. There has been disagreement about the integrity of the science basis of the EPA draft, both in the United States and in Europe, and the feeling persists that it was unjustifiably alarmist. The eminent toxicologist, Professor Bridges, of Surrey university, told a Manchester conference recently that the dioxin issue was largely political.
The royal commission has not changed its view on energy from waste, and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food has not altered the tolerable daily intake for dioxins, which is the amount the committee considers people can be exposed to every day with no adverse health effects. There nevertheless remains a concerned and rational international consensus on the need to reduce environmental dioxin.
Since 1993, incinerators have been tightly regulated—more than many other processes. All plants must meet the new standards, including a very low dioxin limit, required by HMIP; they will have to close if they do not. Some incinerators have been significant sources of dioxins, but the industry has put its house in order and, by next year, will account for an insignificant proportion of the overall dioxin burden, even if there is a large increase in the waste processed.
To give some idea of the scale, a modern energy from waste plant emits a tiny fraction of 1 gramme toxic equivalent a year, against, for instance, measurements of 40 grammes from sintering—carried out in steel making—and an estimated 1 to 2 kg arising from a single accidental plastics fire, to say nothing of the emissions willingly caused by the public on Guy Fawkes night.
I warmly welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I hope that a better understanding of the importance of energy from waste will be heard.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for raising this subject. It is not particularly romantic, as we know, but it is crucial. The debate also gives me an opportunity for a five-minute rant on a subject I feel strongly about—the fact that our country, and especially my borough of Newham, is litter strewn.
Litter is a big problem in Newham. I seem to represent some of the dirtiest constituents in the country. [Laughter.] What is more, I say so regularly in the local newspapers. That was the gist of my new year greetings to the good folk of Newham—that they were a pretty filthy bunch who should clean up their act.
People in my area, Forest Gate, ask me what the council is doing about the mess. I have to keep pointing out that the council officers do not creep around at midnight dumping litter on the streets. It is the people who live in the area who are responsible for the mess. The council has done its best by putting as many bins as possible around the area. Miraculously, the bins seem to move up and down the street, always managing to avoid the places where the litter is dropped.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms); when he was leader of the council, he was keen to introduce the extra bins. His predecessor, Ron Leighton, used to go out with teams of people picking up litter, trying to set an example to the people in the area.
I do not know why people are so filthy—it is difficult to understand. Perhaps they lack a sense of community. Perhaps their homes are as filthy as the streets. I do not know—I suspect that they probably are not—but a feeling exists that, somehow, public property is second class and unimportant and one can litter the streets because it is not important and someone else will clear up the mess. It is an irresponsible attitude but, in many ways, it is based on the Government's philosophy that private property is sacrosanct and must always be highly regarded, protected and enhanced; public property is second hand and second rate and people do not have to have the same regard for it. That philosophy spreads its way through society. That is my theory, for what it is worth.
Many hon. Members have said that recycling is the key. Of course recycling will play an important role in waste disposal, but it is difficult to recycle if people simply dump their litter in the streets. I have a number of straightforward, on the street proposals. First, we need far more education in schools about litter and waste. In many cases, kids are responsible.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Although I do not wish to comment on whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents are dirty, I agree with the point that he has just made. Does he agree that educating people about waste minimisation and the advantages of home composting, which could deal with one third of all household waste, is an excellent way of moving forward but has not been mentioned so far?

Mr. Banks: I agree. Education is the key. Many of my constituents might be dirty in that they drop litter, but they are also politically astute. I must say that in case it is thought that I am being unusually critical of my constituents.
All confectionery and fast-food shops, and those that sell wrapped items, should be required to have litter bins outside their premises. Shopkeepers should be required to clear the immediate vicinity of their premises. Many good shopkeepers do precisely that.
We have heard a lot about the peace dividend, which we welcome, in Northern Ireland. I should like to have a peace dividend in terms of the return of litter bins in London Underground stations and in mainline terminuses in London, which would be helpful as well.
We should require manufacturers of all products that eventually become waste, including motor vehicles and tyres, which have been mentioned, to take them back for recycling. That is done in Germany and a number of other countries. The Government should seriously consider that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has just come back from Singapore. No doubt he saw that the streets were very clean. Singapore has a good way of dealing with the problem. I think that people's hands are chopped off or people are birched if they drop litter in the streets. I am not so extreme, but we should be far stricter with people who litter our streets.
One of the good things that Singapore has done is ban chewing gum. I am a great chewer of chewing gum, but I do not spit it on to the streets or on to underground train seats, which many people seem to do. A large number of poor old pigeons can be seen limping around because their claws have got caught up in a ball of stinking chewing gum. Perhaps we should make Wrigleys responsible for cleaning the streets and underground train seats.
I had so many more good ideas to put to the House but, unfortunately, time has run out and I must resume my seat so that Front-Bench Members can, speak.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) not only for ending his speech there but for cheering us all up for this debate's final round. I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on securing the debate, and I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friends because they have given the House the benefit of examples of good practice by Labour authorities in this sector.
I have a special interest in waste disposal because, as a newly elected Member of Parliament, illegal fly tipping was the first community problem that was brought to me. The residential community had been terrorised by criminals who, over a period of years, dumped thousands of tonnes of rubble in their midst. Two years later, my private Member's legislation was placed on the statute book, creating a registration scheme for waste carriers and heavy penalties for tippers.
People who live near the generation or disposal of waste have long known its environmental costs, but until recently, the public at large appeared oblivious to the enormous cost, in terms of pollution, raw materials depletion and human illhealth, of our consumerist, throwaway society.
For 10 years, the Government observed the problem of massive growth in waste of all sorts: inadequate landfills, illegal dumping, cowboy operators, poor monitoring and the development of dangerous incinerators, and that was just on land. The scope of today's debate is necessarily limited, but we should remember the massive dumping of radioactive waste, munitions and sewage sludge in our coastal waters and the wider seas, and the continuing pollution of our rivers from current industrial sources and abandoned mines.
In essence, the subject of today's debate is the Government's waste strategy, published as a White Paper just one month ago. It is long overdue. No Government can be pledged to a strategy of sustainable development, as this one say they are, and not produce a national waste strategy, yet on waste, as on so many other crucial topics, the Government have struggled to reconcile the need to regulate and to enforce with the dogma of deregulation and privatisation.
Even now, 15 years on, we have only a White Paper. Laudable though its proposals are, they apply only to England and Wales and no statutory force is promised for the strategy before 1997 "at the earliest". I can therefore say with some confidence that the responsibility for implementing a national waste strategy for the United Kingdom will fall to a Labour Government.
Labour has long accepted that the creation of a national sustainable strategy for waste is an integral part of an overall strategy for sustainable development. The Government seem to accept that in their White Paper, yet they have no energy policy and no strategy for sustainable transport. I have no doubt that, if, as is deemed will happen, the Environment Agency is given the resources and, more important, the political space in which to propose a national waste strategy to Government, it will create a sea change in waste management.
Labour has long accepted the notion of the waste hierarchy and was among the people criticising earlier Government proposals that failed to put waste reduction at the top of that hierarchy. Even now, its inclusion, which we welcome, is inadequately dealt with in the White Paper. Ministers claim lack of accurate data, yet only one year ago they proposed stabilising household waste generation at 1995 levels, with progressive reductions as soon as possible. Why has that proposal been abandoned?
There cannot be any individual household, business or institution in the land that could not reduce its waste production with a little thought and effort. The Government's promise to introduce a strategy by the end of 1998 is frankly pathetic. Although that may be a realistic target for the collection of national data, much more positive action on reduction should be sought in the meantime.
Controversy also surrounds other parts of the hierarchy. Re-use follows reduction, with which we wholeheartedly agree, but again the Government say little. Industry, however, can offer some good examples and other nations have done much to use market mechanisms such as deposit refund schemes to encourage re-use.
In our view, and that of most environmentalists, the next stage in the hierarchy should be recycling and composting. The Government have chosen, however, to include both under the heading "recovery" and to give energy from waste equal status to them. That brings me to the heart of today's debate.
Is there any potential conflict between recycling and incineration? I think that we would all agree that the hon. Member for Faversham argued a persuasive case in favour of recycling. Nationally, because recycling, composting and incineration account for such a small percentage of actual waste treatment, the scope to develop all three is vast, but at local level, conflicts can occur.
The South East London Combined Heat and Power plant in my constituency, which has been mentioned and which, I hasten to add, is a state-of-the-art incinerator that is carefully and properly monitored, faces such a potential conflict. Its financial viability obviously depends on securing waste contracts of sufficient magnitude to run the plant efficiently. If its existing local authority contractors were to seek dramatically to increase the percentage of waste they recycled, which the Government propose they should do, clearly, they might want to plan for smaller future contracts with the incinerator company. I raise this only by way of illustration because I am aware of the need properly to evaluate recycling processes which themselves consume energy and can have environmental consequences and because I am also aware of the value of energy recovery through the burning of waste. It is our belief that environmental considerations should be paramount in the decision-making process.
It is clear that, to reduce pollution and transport costs, much recycling and recovery need to occur close to the point of waste generation. That means close co-operation between business, industry and local authorities. As the Government appear to have accepted that, will the Minister tell us what will be the regional basis for decision making of that kind?
Let me return to the waste hierarchy. After reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery comes disposal. As we have heard in the debate, that is a point of great controversy. There is not just the issue of incinerators; no one wants to live next to a landfill. I remind the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) of the factory farm site at Borstal, an appalling landfill which has caused great distress to her constituents.
Because hundreds of millions of tonnes of controlled waste are generated per annum, we know that there will be a need for incineration and landfill to continue in the short and medium term. Our guiding principle should be to minimise the dangers to the environment and to health from such facilities. That means proceeding apace with the closure of all incinerators that do not meet the highest modern standards, ensuring public access to data for all waste disposal facilities and minimising the need for new facilities by a comprehensive strategy with targets for the entire waste hierarchy. That is where the Government signally fail. Setting and achieving targets on the top two rungs of the hierarchy is essential to making progress in ultimate disposal. Instead, the Government simply appear to be relying on one blunt market mechanism—the landfill tax. Shifting a proportion of disposal from landfill to incineration may be desirable, but only if overall waste is reduced.
The Government's targets are modest in the extreme—a mere 10 per cent. in the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill over a 10-year period. Even the mechanisms are not clear. Local authorities are expected to play a significant role, not least because 90 per cent. Of

household waste goes to landfill. The White Paper proposes a target of 40 per cent. recovery of value from municipal waste over the next 10 years and a target of 25 per cent. recycling of household waste within five years.
Will the Minister tell us how the landfill tax will impact on local authorities and will he give a clear indication of the financial implications for local authorities of the White Paper targets? Can he explain the reference to supplementary credit approvals in the context of waste collection that is subject to recovery rather than disposal? That is in the White Paper, but my reading of the recent public expenditure settlement is that such supplementary approvals to encourage recycling projects will be cut by two thirds within two years. Will the Minister confirm that? If that is so, can he explain how the Government intend the proposals to work or is that perhaps the secret of their strategy—a laudable White Paper, a load of good intentions but no political will to implement them?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on securing it. It has been a good, constructive and well-informed debate and, perhaps inevitably, much of the focus has been on recycling. That was certainly the case in the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who spoke briefly and to the point, for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was recycling some of his jokes or disposing of them. I was interested in his method of greeting his constituents in Newham. He made some interesting points.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) could have been a little more forthcoming in welcoming the Government's targets and accepting that they are ambitious targets. She will know of our target to reduce the amount of household waste going to landfill and to bring about a 25 per cent. target for recycling and composting of household waste. She knows of our targets for landfill and for municipal waste. The hon. Lady will see that our strategy is wide ranging and comprehensive and is backed by initiatives and ambitious targets.
I was interested in the hon. Lady's comments about energy recovery from incineration. She seemed to criticise that at the beginning of her comments, but there was a lack of detail about the basic point of where energy recovery from incineration would fit into her hierarchy—whether it would be alongside recycling, composting or somewhere else. She fell silent on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was concerned about a number of detailed points in his locality. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Medway, he spoke forcefully about local issues and local views, which are always important and need to be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham will understand that I cannot go into detail about the Government's view because there are obvious reasons why I cannot comment on matters that are still within the province of inquiries. However, it will be open to inspectors at inquiries to take into account the general


approach set out for recycling in our strategy document entitled "Making Waste Work", which was issued just before Christmas.
My hon. Friend referred to what he saw as the blind acceptance of incineration as a principal alternative. I can reassure him that that is not the way in which incineration fits into the strategy overall. I invite him to see the strategy as a method that seeks to bring about the best practicable environmental option in any given case. The hon. Member for Huddersfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred to a balanced approach. The Government's approach in the strategy document is balanced and can bring about the best practicable environmental option in each case.
I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham to see incineration, alongside recycling in its place in the hierarchy, as something that must be analysed in each case. We must consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages, some of which were dealt with by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend was also concerned about dioxins. He looked for assurances from me about the Government's approach to that and about future statements from HMIP. In September last year, HMIP published a report entitled "A review of dioxin emissions in the United Kingdom". It examined known and possible sources of dioxins in the United Kingdom and updated the estimates which my Department published in January 1995 as part of its response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's draft assessment, about which we heard earlier. The HMIP report predicts that full implementation of integrated pollution control by HMIP and other control measures by local authorities will reduce the figures for dioxin emissions appreciably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham talked about the relative cost of recycling and incineration. It is difficult to compare like with like in this situation as there are no typical examples. Fees will vary according to size, location, type of waste, outstanding capital finance liabilities and other factors. My hon. Friend may find it helpful to know that generally energy from waste costs between £10 and £30 per tonne more than landfill. Recycling costs vary widely, depending on the factors that I have identified.
My hon. Friend also made some important references to the general benefits of recycling and those matters will be taken into account. However, he will not be surprised to hear that I cannot agree with him that it is always a simple case of either/or—both recycling and incineration with energy recovery may have a part to play. The two are not necessarily exclusive. It may be that, in any particular case, both can combine to bring about a solution.
On that note, I want to emphasise that the Government have an appropriate and comprehensive strategy which sets ambitious targets. Hon. Members are concerned whether individual cases will fit into that strategy. I promise that I will give hon. Members a detailed reply by letter.

BSE and CJD

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, albeit briefly, the issue of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and concerns about the possible connections with Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease. My particular interest in the issue arose out of representations I received in 1991 from the family of a constituent who had been diagnosed as suffering from CJD. Since that time, I have asked a significant number of questions in Parliament, of both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, the answers to which have, on some occasions, left me in some doubt about how seriously the Government are treating public concern about BSE and the possible connections with CJD.
My serious concern is how much the extent of BSE infection and its implications have been underestimated by the Government. The Minister will recall that by 1989 BSE had been studied for some three years. In that year, the report of the Southwood working party on BSE predicted that the total number of cases would be between 17,000 and 20,000—on the assumption that vertical or horizontal transmission did not occur.
According to a parliamentary answer on 31 October 1995, by 26 October the number of confirmed BSE cases in the United Kingdom was 154,150. I understand that the figure is now about 157,000. In view of the length of time that it takes for an animal to show signs of the disease, it is reasonable to assume that many more affected cattle must have been slaughtered before symptoms were recognised. To put it mildly, there is a significant discrepancy between the Southwood predictions and the latest figures. It is important to consider the possible reasons for that.
When the Southwood working party was announced on 21 April 1988, the Government said that they would legislate to ban the feeding of rations that contained protein derived from ruminants. That decision arose from studies completed a year earlier, which concluded that the only viable hypothesis for the cause of BSE was meat and bone meal from ruminants. By the time the Southwood committee reported, it was assumed that the ban—introduced on 18 July 1988—had been implemented effectively. The subsequent ban on specified bovine offals was, according to the Government, a precautionary measure introduced alongside assurances that any health risk to humans from beef consumption was remote.
We all recall a former Minister publicly forcing burgers down his daughter. The tone of such highly placed reassurances, geared to a concerned public, clearly also left farmers, abattoir workers, renderers and compounders believing that affected cattle showing signs of the disease would hold no risk to humans. Now, the Government are implying in parliamentary answers and statements that a key factor in explaining the huge difference between Southwood's maximum of 20,000 and the reality of more than 157,000 is widespread breaches of regulations.
The Times on 20 November 1995 quoted Government statements to the effect that the state veterinary service made unannounced visits to 193 abattoirs last September and found failings in the handling of offal in 92 of them. The service visited 153 in October and found failings


in 52. Although the Government's statements were qualified to assure the public that such failings were mostly not of a serious nature, the implications are clear—that such problems offer some explanation of the extraordinary discrepancy in the figures for infected animals.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am afraid that time is limited. I had hoped for a longer debate. I do not intend to give way, but I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman.
Unfortunately, the limited number of prosecutions for such breaches—for example, only two in 1991 and 1993—undermines the Government's professed concern about the alleged law-breaking. The figures for confirmed cases clearly raise a serious question about whether previous assumptions about vertical or horizont al transmission are correct. The Minister will know that between September 1988 and April 1989, new-born calves were removed from more than 600 dams in a Ministry experiment and were reared on fresh grass, with the aim of quantifying the extent, if any, of vertical transfer. According to a parliamentary answer on 31 January 1995, by that time more than 30 of those animals had developed BSE. Will the Minister confirm my information that by last month the figure had risen to 42?
I also note from a letter from the Minister on 20 November that since the feed ban was imposed in 1988, more than 22,000 calves with BSE have been born, one as recently as June 1993. The range of ages of those born since the ban is virtually the same as those born before it. In a series of replies, the Minister has claimed that all 22,000 were exposed to remnants of contaminated feed. However, that does not explain the results of the experiment, which seem to show the occurrence of vertical as well as horizontal transfer.
On 23 October 1995, the BSE advisory committee—the SEAC—announced that it had reviewed the reported case of CJD in a farmer who had a case of BSE in his beef suckler herd. It noted that three previous CJD cases had been confirmed in dairy farmers whose herds also had BSE. It concluded that it was difficult to explain that as a chance phenomenon given the statistical excess of cases on cattle farms compared with the general population.
The SEAC's statement noted examples of CJD in other European countries with few or no cases of BSE. I know that the Government have also drawn such comparisons on a number of occasions. However, it has been put to me that those comparisons are flawed unless the number of BSE and CJD cases are expressed as a fraction of the at-risk cattle and the human population. Assuming an annual incidence of CJD of one case per million of population per year and 20,000 farmers at risk, I understand that it would be expected that one farmer at risk would succumb only every 50 years—not four in the past three years.
Serious questions must also be asked about assumptions about BSE-free herds, in relation to both the domestic and the export meat trade. The Craven Herald and Pioneer newspaper, in its edition on Friday 8 December 1995, reported the conviction of two farmers—Stephen and John

Thompson, a father and son, of Old Hall farm, Gargrave, Yorkshire—for trades description offences. They included falsely declaring the age of a calf and not declaring that the animal had been born to a BSE-infected cow. The report quoted John Thompson as saying to Skipton magistrates:
We have had around 1,200 BSE cases on our farm and have kept these out of the food chain.
In the following week's edition of that newspaper, on 15 December, a letter was published from R. W. Payne, of Marton close, Gargrave, pointing out an apparent error in the previous week's report of the court case. The letter said:
It surely cannot be that they have had 1,200 cases when the whole of North Yorkshire had had 7,000 total over the last 10 years. At a time of BSE worries, I think that the correct figure should be found and printed this week.
The letter was accompanied by an editor's note stating that both figures were correct.
I am reliably informed that the herd in question contains around 100 milkers and that the worst possible scenario would be an average of 2 per cent. BSE cases a year, giving a total so far of, say, 20. A number of cases totalling 1,200 is regarded as being completely impossible, and it has been put to me that the only way in which so many BSE cases could be collected is by the farm representing a massive offloading station for other farmers who can continue to claim that their herds are BSE-free.
I am unclear about the legal position on transferring animals in such a way. It is just one illustration of the way in which figures on the incidence and location of BSE-infected animals are open to serious question. It is also evidence of the financial pressures of centralising on one herd. I will be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the implications of that practice.
I will also be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the policing of the order made in 1991 under the Animal Health Act 1981, banning the use of protein material derived from specified offal as fertiliser. I shall refer to another cause for concern in Yorkshire. I understand that for several years Keighley abattoir has put unusable and unsaleable blood and guts into tankers, the contents of which have been sprayed on fields owned—I am told—by Mr. Harvey Smith, which are in close proximity to the local Graincliffe reservoir. It is apparently a common sight to see gulls foraging on the freshly sprayed fields before settling on the nearby reservoir.
If what the tankers spray is not specified bovine offal, I would stress that that practice, as I understand it, is perfectly legal. I wonder, however, how it is possible in a slaughterhouse to ensure that such specified offals are totally separated, especially when cattle comprise the greatest volume of carcases. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on that.
Apart from my serious doubts about the assumptions that the Government are making in relation to the transfer of BSE, I am greatly concerned about the effectiveness of the measures being taken to keep infectivity out of the human food chain. Although it is possible to exclude bovine tissue from symptomatic cattle entering the food chain, how can the Government guarantee that no infectivity from infected but non-symptomatic cattle from purportedly BSE-free herds will enter the food chain? The Minister will of course recall that the "World in Action"


programme screened before Christmas showed that symptomatic and pre-symptomatic cattle with BSE were being eaten in the United Kingdom.
Sir Bernard Tomlinson, the neuropathologist who has advised the Government on health issues, was reported in The Times on 14 November 1995 as saying that he was no longer eating products likely to contain beef offal. His decision was based on the rise in cases of CJD, the disproportionate number of farmers contracting it and the recent deaths of two teenagers from the disease. He stated that the Government are taking an unjustifiable risk in allowing brain and other offal from calves under the age of six months into the food chain. His views and the views of a number of other eminent scientists raising similar doubts about the Government's handling of the matter must be treated seriously.
The Government say—and I would accept it—that there is no evidence that BSE can be passed to humans. The other side of the coin, which I think the Minister will accept, is that there is no evidence that it cannot be passed to humans. If the Government cannot give a 100 per cent. assurance that there is no transmissibility to humans or that infected tissue from non-symptomatic cattle cannot enter the human food chain, there is clearly a serious possible risk to human health which must not be ignored.
I urge the Government to take a number of immediate steps in view of the present circumstances. First, they should take action to stop completely the movement of animals from infected herds and practices such as those in Yorkshire that I have described. In "Farming Today" on Radio 4 this morning I heard allegations being made about a similar practice in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister consider them? They clearly tie in closely with the concerns that I am expressing about Yorkshire.
In addition, the Government should prevent breeding in such herds and evaluate very carefully the advice of those who have urged a planned and sensible slaughter prior to the replacement of those animals from BSE-free herds on new territory. I stress that I have farmers in my constituency—with boundary commission changes I have an increasing number of them—and I do not in any way underestimate the cost implications of such a policy. We have to balance those costs against the future health of the nation.
The Government must markedly increase research into trying to find the agent responsible for CJD, the extent of infected produce that humans need to consume before they are at risk and treatments for the disease. It is quite incredible that, given public concern over the issue, research evaluation is being reduced by the Government.

The Minister for Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister shakes her head. I shall be interested to hear her comments.
As a parent of two school-age children, I also urge the Government to take urgent and significant steps to reduce the risk to children, especially pre-school children.
I recognise that the Minister does not have a specific health brief, but will she, with her colleagues in the Department of Health, listen to the concerns of the CJD support network, an organisation set up last year by families who have cared for relatives with CJD with the backing of the Alzheimer's Disease Society? Specifically,

I understand that the support network is pressing for CJD to be made a notifiable disease, for the establishment of an independent inquiry into the causes of it and for a much greater consideration of the practical help and support needed by those caring for sufferers. I endorse in full its concerns.
I am conscious of the need to give the Minister time to reply in some detail, but in the context of the question mark over BSE, may I press the Minister to recognise the serious lack of public confidence stemming directly from the Government's failure to separate ministerial responsibility for the production of food from the responsibility for consumer interest? I hope that she will understand that, regardless of one's views on BSE, there is a clear public perception that her Government are always rather more concerned with protecting the business interests of food producers than with the health of food consumers.

The Minister for Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Although I very much welcome the opportunity taken by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) to bring this very important subject to the Floor of the House, I somewhat regret the tone in which he has presented his case. First, there has been no reduction in research into BSE. In fact, as a result of the Budget, an extra £1 million will be going into research into BSE. Of course the Government rely on the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee to advise us on areas in which it feels additional research would be beneficial—whether it concerns BSE or CJD. We obviously listen very carefully to its advice.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised particularly cases in Yorkshire and cited specific companies involved in the purchase of animals which he says act as a collecting point for BSE cattle. A total of 915 BSE-positive cattle have been reported by Messrs Thompson since 1988, of which 76 per cent. have been traced to the original owners. We take very seriously the question whether people—perhaps—on occasions try to circumvent the system in order to keep the BSE-free status on their holding through the offloading of animals as the hon. Gentleman described. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he has further examples and writes to me, I shall ensure that officials do those tracings. If problems are found, obviously we will encourage trading standards officers to take out prosecutions. Prosecutions have been brought in cases in which we have found such circumventions.
The Government's position on BSE and CJD is based on listening to the experts and following the advice of the independent advisory committees, which are made up of leading experts. The opinion of the overwhelming majority of those experts working on BSE and CJD, not only in the United Kingdom but in the European Union and elsewhere, is that the Government's actions are not only prudent but sufficient to protect the safety of people who eat beef and bovine products. I must say that we have always taken the advice of the SEAC and put it into the public domain as quickly as possible.
The Government have a responsibility to protect the health of the individual by removing products that could present a risk from the food chain. But we also have a responsibility to take a balanced view and to avoid responding to unfounded fears by banning material that is perfectly safe.
It is wrong to suggest that the Government have been in any way reckless in relation to BSE and CJD. We have taken expert advice and worked on the precautionary principle that BSE theoretically could be a risk to humans. We have based our controls on that hypothesis even though there is no evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans and despite good evidence gained from several centuries of experience that the similar disease of scrapie in sheep is not linked to CJD in humans. We have assumed that BSE could, in theory, be a risk. We have therefore taken proportionate action to ensure that the risk is removed should there ever be evidence that that scientific link is made.
On that basis, suspect cattle are destroyed—whether on the farm, in the market, at a dealer's premises or at the slaughterhouse—and their owners are compensated. It was also on that basis that the specified bovine offal ban was introduced. Again on the recommendation of the SEAC, we have tightened up the administration of the SBO ban in cases in which the order was not being complied with in accordance with the committee's advice. We have recently, for example, taken action to ensure that specified bovine offal is properly stained, separated and disposed of quite separately from materials which might enter either the human food chain or animal feed. Those important measures are designed to protect human health and have ensured that the only tissues in which BSE infectivity has ever been detected, either experimentally or in clinical cases, have been completely removed from both the human and the animal food chains.
The SBO ban applies to all cattle, other than calves under the age of six months, which are slaughtered for human consumption. As a result of experimental findings in 1994, the ban was extended to cover the intestine and the thymus of calves, which is a precaution because infectivity has not been detected in the thymus.
The Government's policy is a cautious, belt and braces approach. The "belt" is taking all cattle which show symptoms of the clinical disease out of the system and destroying them and the "braces" are removing the SBOs from all healthy cattle at slaughter. That ensures that they do not enter either the human or the animal food chains. The "braces" are required because we recognise that the "belt" cannot detect animals which are incubating the disease before the clinical signs develop.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised the issue of animals going to market and then being sold on. He might be interested to know that animals often show no clinical signs of the disease on the farm, but that the clinical symptoms are accentuated because of the stress placed on the animal by the transit and the offloading at market. Animals are sometimes picked up at market which have been incubating BSE, but it is the transit which has exacerbated the clinical symptoms.
Much has been made in the media recently about the fact that we cannot identify infected cattle which show no signs of the disease. Some mischievous journalists have presented this as a new finding. The press notice issued in June 1989, however, when the SBO ban was proposed, made it clear that the ban was being introduced precisely because we recognised the fact that pre-clinical cases could enter the food chain. The ban was designed, and all the subsequent scientific evidence has shown that it was

correctly designed, to remove all the tissues that could harbour the agent. The Government do not argue that BSE in cattle could not be a risk to human health if no preventive measures were taken.
The Government have taken an ultra-precautionary line, and the overwhelming view of international experts is that we have acted correctly. Unfortunately, that does not make a good story in the press, which has tried to whip the issue up into a frenzy of public alarm when there is simply no cause.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is most regrettable that the media choose to interview scientists and people who are eminent in their own specialty, particularly of medicine, but who have not been involved in the day-to-day research and information collected on the subject. They have been paraded as advisers to the Government, but the media have then not agreed to interview the very people who advise the Government. That poses the question whether the media, lacking other news stories, particularly in the pre-Christmas period, were rather unprincipled in the way in which they went about reporting the subject.
Many eminent scientists, including the chairman of the SEAC, and the chief medical officer advise the Government. The chief medical officer, not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is responsible for human health. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the separation of responsibilities. Obviously MAFF Ministers must answer questions about the animal food chain and how it interfaces with the human food chain, but the chief medical officer has responsibility for human health. He has made it clear that if he felt there was a need to warn the public of a threat to human health it would be his duty to do so regardless of what was said by other Ministries and other people. I am quite sure that he would carry out that duty and obligation to the country.

Mr. Gill: The debate is about serious matters and I think that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was in danger of confusing the animal health issue with the human health issue. As he knows, there is no direct proof of any connection between the two. He was able to make such a speech because no scientist worth his salt—I am sure that the Minister would agree that this is the problem from her point of view—will stand up in public or publish his findings stating categorically that there can be no link between BSE and CJD or between any other animal disease and any other human disease. That is the problem. The fact that scientists cannot give that categorical assurance does not license the hon. Member or the press to continue to make allegations without any basis of truth or science behind them.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Although we have had some encouraging interim reports, the nature of the research into BSE and CJD means that it will take a long time to conclude and to come up with the definitive answer that I am sure that my hon. Friend and I would like. It is not a matter of saying that the Government could find some extra money to carry out a six-month experiment and we would then have the answer. That is not the nature of the type of research conducted. I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield will accept that, because I am sure he will appreciate that if we could have come up with an earlier answer than that given so far, we would certainly have made sure that that was possible. Where possible, we encourage research that


is done in the private sector as well and put it in the public domain. Where possible, we also publish interim results and, although they are not definitive, they help to identify a trend and the thrust of research. That is helpful to us all.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not consider the subject a matter for party political debate. It is a grave matter, which the Government take seriously. We have at all times relied on independent scientific advice and have made it public. In particular, I hope the House will be interested to know that the most recent progress report on research was put in the public domain just before Christmas. I would like to tell the House that the chairman and deputy chairman of the independent SEAC committee have recently written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The letter says:
If there was any risk to human health from BSE, and there may be none, then we have no doubt that that risk is very much less in December 1995 than it has ever been.
I am disappointed that that clear statement of confidence has not been taken up by the media as vociferously as that which they said before, when they were trying to put the other side of the argument. I have arranged for a copy of the letter to be lodged in the Library today, and I hope that hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wakefield, will avail themselves of the opportunity to read it and that it will reassure them.

Council of Europe (Russian Accession)

1 pm

Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss Russia's application to join the European democratic community that is the Council of Europe. As the House may know, I am one of the three rapporteurs whose responsibility it is to recommend an opinion for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to offer to our Committee of Ministers, which will be debated at our next session in Strasbourg in two weeks' time.
It must be clear that, whatever our recommendation, it will have far-reaching consequences for both Russia and Europe. Should we decide to invite Russia to join, for which it has been pressing since 1992, we know that that will be a political judgment, made in the clear realisation that Russia has not yet reached our standards of membership, but that it is more likely to achieve those standards as a full member than if we were to keep it out in the cold.
Should we decide that we cannot compromise our standards to such an extent in the case of the largest country in Europe, we risk unknown consequences for Russia, Europe and the rest of the world. That dilemma was discussed in a debate on the same subject in another place just over a year ago by my noble Friend Lord Finsberg, in his capacity as leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe—and I use this opportunity to record what an excellent leader he is.
At the risk of boring the House, before enlarging on my case for Russian accession now, I shall place on the record my personal experience, which has led me to the debate today. As a hitch-hiking student in the 1960s, I visited Leningrad and saw at first hand how Russian people were treated under the Soviet system, and how their human rights and fundamental freedoms were denied.
I was especially appalled by the way in which Christians and Jews were treated, and I was determined to do something about it—although, when I was a student, there were few opportunities for that, except by sharing my experiences with any audience that would listen.
Shortly after my election to the House in 1977, two things happened. First, I became involved in a human rights organisation called Christian Solidarity International, which campaigns on behalf of those who are persecuted for being Christian. It had recently been established in Switzerland to support the dissident Russian baptist pastor Georgei Vins. CSI sent me on several missions behind the iron curtain to meet brave campaigners for human rights, such as Father Gleb Yakunin and others in the Moscow Committee for the Defence of Believers Rights, many of whom were subsequently sent to the gulag.
Those visits, on which I can now look back with some satisfaction, were pretty hairy at the time—perhaps it is just as well that it was only recently that I learned that my KGB file described me as working at various times for MI5, the CIA and Mossad.
The second occurrence was that Baroness Thatcher appointed me to the British delegation to the Council of Europe, which provided me with an appropriate platform, in addition to the House, from which to publicise the


human rights situation that I had seen at first hand in the Soviet Union and its European allies. I did so, in five reports over 10 years, with recommendations for member states to pursue in the Helsinki process, now the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
I was especially delighted that the Vienna concluding document of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—as it then was—dated 19 January 1989, which only Ceausescu's Romania refused to sign, defined freedom of religion according to the CSI definition that I had recommended.
It was on the strength of those reports that I was appointed the rapporteur on Russia, following its application for membership. Russia had inherited the special guest status granted to the Soviet Union in response to President Gorbachev's commitment to reform, and that allowed a Russian parliamentary delegation to come to Strasbourg.
A year ago, it became clear that Russia under President Yeltsin had made considerable progress towards our standards of democracy and human rights. There is freedom of religion, of expression, of assembly and of association, and freedom for the media. Russia is also developing a multi-party system. We had found its first elections to the new bicameral Parliament that replaced the Congress of People's Deputies to be free and fair, but with certain shortcomings that we expected to be improved in the elections that were due last month. Indeed they were, as I saw for myself.
Russia's new constitution, clearly endorsed by referendum, established a presidential and parliamentary system similar to those of France and of the United States—although it soon became clear that the essential checks and balances between the presidency and Parliament would take time and experience to evolve.
Russia was also fast establishing a free market economy—too fast, perhaps one can say with hindsight, without adequate safety nets for the most vulnerable, and without an effective rule of law in place to deal with organised crime and with the former party bosses who knew how to milk and launder the proceeds of privatisation. The reform parties certainly paid a heavy price for that at the elections last month.
Russia still had a long way to go to improve its rule of law and its legal order, its criminal and civil codes, and especially the conditions in its prisons and detention centres, as the independent "Eminent Lawyers"—members of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights—found in their damning report of October 1994. Nevertheless, there were grounds for anticipating that Russia might qualify for accession last year—perhaps, as some suggested, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe.
However, those expectations were dashed by Russia's conduct in Chechnya a year ago. The excessive brutality used, and the denial of basic human rights so effectively exposed by Sergey Kovalev, the former dissident and President Yeltsin's human rights commissioner, were in our view no hallmarks of a country preparing to join the Council of Europe. Consequently, we suspended dealing with Russia's application, while continuing to advise and assist in the search for an acceptable alternative political and peaceful solution to the problem in Chechnya.
After many meetings with the Russians, as well as with Dudayev's representatives in Grozny, the three rapporteurs felt able to recommend that we resume dealing with the Russian application, and the Assembly endorsed that recommendation last September. Following last month's elections to the state Duma, the Political Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe accepted the unanimous opinion of the rapporteurs that the Assembly should now recommend Russian accession.

Mr. Christopher Gill: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a recent press report, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), on his recent experiences in Chechnya? As I read that report, far from being an endorsement of Russia's candidature for the Council of Europe, it constitutes a jolly good reason why we should now reconsider that application very seriously.

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, I am aware of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), which appeared in The Independent. I read it last night, and I shall respond to it later.
I supported that final draft opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, because it now provides for eight of the 10 outstanding conditions that I regarded as essential, a copy of which I sent to the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), in November. The first of those is to ratify the convention for the prevention of inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, which would end the unacceptable conditions in Russia's prisons. Others are: to effectively exercise those rights enshrined in the constitution relating to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence, which would end Russia's unacceptable permit system; to pursue legal reforms in line with European standards, which would—among many other things—bring to an end the unacceptable 30-day detention without charge and the unacceptable brutality and violations of the basic human rights of young conscripts and recruits in the Russian armed forces; to adopt a law for alternative military service, as foreseen in the constitution; to relax restrictions on international travel of the remaining so-called "refuseniks" who are aware of state secrets; to negotiate with the Churches the return of property stolen since the 1917 revolution; and to withdraw the 14th Russian army from Moldova within three years of the agreement of 21 October 1994.
Of course, I still want to see legislation to provide for the private ownership of agricultural land, which would do so much to realise Russia's food potential, but that remains a matter for its Government and Parliament.
I shall be proposing that the Assembly establish a special committee to monitor the situation in Chechnya and to come forward with proposals based on our own Council of Europe's expertise on the protection of minority rights, including our new framework convention, which both sides can accept. That committee will certainly monitor reports such as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, following his recent visit to Chechnya. He saw at first hand brutality not just by Dudayev's forces but by Russian forces, and he accurately reported upon that.
The House must be concerned about what is happening in the Chechen region at present. The holding of innocent patients as hostages by forces associated with Dudayev is


wholly unacceptable. We regard Chechnya as part of the Russian Federation. As we know, the so-called "Tatarstan solution"—providing for maximum autonomy short of outright independence—is negotiable. That is a clear message that I hope will emerge from the forthcoming debate on the Russian accession.
I appreciate that there will be those pessimists who will regard an imminent Russian accession as premature, a compromise too far, and dangerous for the Council of Europe. There is no doubt that Russian membership will represent the greatest challenge to the Council of Europe since we introduced special guest status for those countries emerging from communist control.
But we should be positive. Full membership will encourage the forces of democracy and reform in Russia, both in Parliament and in government. In the light of last month's elections, those forces need every assistance and co-operation, which the Council of Europe programmes—along with those of the European Union and our own excellent know-how fund—are providing.
Ratification of our numerous conventions—an essential condition of membership—will further encourage Russia's progress towards our European standards. Most crucially, of course, the ratification of the convention on human rights will provide for the right of an individual to petition the European Court, which—as we know only too well from our own experience—has a jurisdiction higher than any national court or Government.
No doubt it will be said that the ordinary Russian in the street will never get to hear of this unique protection of his rights, let alone about the legal processes which are there to realise it. My experience of Russian human rights organisations suggests a different conclusion. Born during the Soviet era, there are probably more human rights non-governmental organisations in Russia than in any other country, and those organisations are well aware of their rights in the constitution and in law. They will, I suspect, be seeking to put to an early test any violations, and with the utmost publicity.
I learned last night that the BBC's excellent Marshall plan of the mind trust—which provides information and advice to Russia on the consequences of reform—will include in its next phase the rule of law, human rights and the right of individual petition under the convention should Russia join the Council of Europe. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that is properly financed through the know-how fund.
Should a reactionary, fascist or ultra-nationalist candidate be elected as Russia's next President in June, it will not he so easy for Russia to withdraw from the clear international legal commitments of full membership, amid all the publicity that such an unprecedented move would encourage. I would expect such a withdrawal to end Russia's association agreement with the EU and its partnership agreement with NATO, as well as to create problems for itself within the OSCE.
Let us not forget that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers have now in place improved machinery for the implementation of commitments entered into by all new member states. My task as rapporteur does not end with accession, but is to monitor, advice, assist, encourage and regularly report to the Assembly with as much publicity as possible. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can

confirm that it is open to the Committee of Ministers to suspend a member state which is seriously in breach of its obligations.
Alternatively, should the pessimists win and we decide to tell Russia that it must wait—probably for several years—for full membership, I have no doubt that President Yeltsin will feel obliged, as well as being overwhelmingly pressed, to withdraw the application. It would be a slap in the face for him, and for Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and the two Speakers of the Parliament who jointly signed an historic document in January 1995 which committed Russia to satisfy our conditions.
Such a decision would undermine the position of the reformers and democrats, who would be ridiculed by those who have always warned that Europe does not want Russia. It would encourage the forces of ultra-nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia and intolerance—all things that the Council of Europe's summit of 1993 pledged to eliminate in Europe—in the run-up to the crucial presidential elections in June.
Should a candidate such as Zhirinovsky—who does not want Russia to join the Council of Europe, but is pledged to establish a Russian-dominated council of eastern Europe—be elected, we would be plunged back into the division, tension, threat and hostility of a cold war, which can lead only to rearmament. It would demonstrate that we have not learnt the lesson of Hitler, who was no part of an institutionalised Europe.
That is a risk we must not take. The next six months will be a decisive period in Russian history. Russian membership of the Council of Europe now can contribute to keeping Russia on track towards meeting our western democratic values, from which we, Europe and the world have so much to gain. I hope and expect the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to share my judgment in two weeks' time.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for raising this important issue. The relationship of the west with Russia is one of the most critical subjects on which we must make decisions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter, with particular reference to Russia's accession to the Council of Europe.
My hon. Friend has personally played a most active part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, both as rapporteur on Russia and as chairman of the committee on relations with European non-member states, in helping to bring Russia to the threshold of membership of this democratic family of 38 member states. My hon. Friend also has a deep experience of Russia and its culture, and his interest goes back to his student days.
It is remarkable to note how the family of the Council of Europe has grown since 1989. The fall of the Berlin wall showed that the former countries of the Soviet bloc were not just willing but able swiftly to embrace the democratic values and obligations to protect human rights enshrined and upheld by the Council of Europe—values almost taken for granted by the established democracies of western Europe. One by one, these countries have sought


admittance to this unique club. Some have found it harder than others to meet the high standards required of members, which are based on the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and the safeguarding of human rights.
Russia has not found the journey to membership an easy one. It has had to negotiate a difficult road since it applied in 1992, and it has had to answer searching questions, particularly about the rule of law. It cannot have been easy for Russians, steeped in the secrecy of the Soviet and Tsarist traditions, to allow Council of Europe parliamentarians to inspect and check the nooks and crannies of the Russian establishment. For a country so soon out of the stultifying grip of 70 years of Soviet rule, that must have been a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it did.
As a frequent visitor to Russia, my hon. Friend well knows the inner tensions that needed to be overcome in order to provide the assurances that political, legal and economic reforms in Russia continue to be sustained.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly is recommending in its opinion to the Assembly in Strasbourg later this month that the Russian Federation should be invited to become a member of the Council of Europe. The Assembly will debate and vote on this opinion, and, if it is approved, will recommend to Governments of the member states that Russia should become the 39th member state in February.
Some argue that it is wrong to allow Russia's admission before it has fully met the entry requirements. There is concern that it will lose the incentive to fulfil its obligations once it has acceded to the organisation, or that Governments will lose the will to monitor compliance with them.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will the House get an opportunity to discuss the Assembly's decision, if it decides to admit Russia? Many of us here feel that it would be the wrong decision in the current circumstances. Many people throughout eastern Europe—Poles, Hungarians and Czechs—feel that it will be seen as a stamp of approval for Russia's brutal campaign in Chechnya, and another sign that the west is ignoring that campaign. They feel that it would be a dangerous move, which we would come to regret in the long term.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall come to Chechnya in a moment. It is not within my power to decide whether the House has a debate on the issue. My hon. Friend will have to take that up with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the business managers.
Whether Russia should be admitted into the Council of Europe is, of course, a political judgment. On balance, the Government think that the arguments for Russian membership next month outweigh the disadvantages, and we welcome the prospect of early membership for Russia. Given the necessary political will, Russia seems more likely to try harder to meet the Council of Europe's standards if it is a member of the organisation than if it is kept outside. Membership would help to underpin Russia's commitment to political reform and democratic principles, and to the observance and protection of human rights.
In dealing with the preparations for Russian accession to the Council of Europe, we are facing a difficult task. The very size of Russia and its needs will make new and

varied demands of the organisation as well as of the Russian Government. In this, Russia should be able to count on the firm support of its fellow members of the Council of Europe for encouragement, as well as advice and practical assistance.
For its part, the United Kingdom offers all three types of help. We sought to encourage Moscow most recently by supporting the EU statement of 2 October which welcomed the resumption of the procedure for Russian accession. We have offered advice to the Russians at both ministerial and official level to co-operate fully with the Council of Europe rapporteurs who are preparing the opinion on Russia's accession. We also offer practical assistance in the areas relevant to that application. In the last financial year we put almost £2 million of the know-how fund's resources to good use by funding projects ranging from reform of the criminal justice system to providing training courses for journalists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked about the next phase of the BBC's Marshall plan of the mind. We received last month the BBC's £5 million proposal for phase III, which includes programmes on the rule of law and the individual's right of petition. We have already funded phases I and II of the Marshall plan of the mind, to the tune of approximately £4 million, and we are currently considering the latest proposal. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage give my hon. Friend the assurance he sought, but I promise him that we will consider the proposal carefully.
Within Russia itself, there are those who are unlikely to allow the Government to forget their commitment to improving the human rights of its citizens. My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the numerous and articulate non-governmental organisations in Russia. Nor should we overlook the power of a free media to open up to public scrutiny the actions of Government.
To be made to wait uncertainly on the sidelines would not strengthen Russia's interest in the Council of Europe, or help the democratic process. It is worth noting that a number of countries, already members of the Council of Europe, similarly use their membership to reinforce their commitment to democratic principles and human rights. Constructive dialogue from within the organisation can provide a way forward for each of these countries. Russia should not be an exception to this approach.
In this respect, however, the Government are opposed to the suggestion contained in the political committee's opinion that some form of special control body be set up to monitor Russia's performance with its obligations. Monitoring will be important, but it is just as important to treat all member states equally. We hope that this can be achieved through the existing Strasbourg monitoring mechanisms. Dialogue and co-operation, not accusations and confrontation, should be our watchwords.
My hon. Friend asked about the power of the Committee of Ministers over members which fail to honour their commitments. I can confirm that, if any member state seriously violates article 3 of the statute of the Council of Europe, it is within the powers invested in the Committee of Ministers to request that member to withdraw from membership under article 7.
If the member fails to comply with this request, the Committee of Ministers may decide that it has ceased to be a member, under article 8 of the statute. That is the ultimate sanction available to Government, and one which


we would not lightly contemplate. We expect and hope that the existing monitoring mechanisms will be sufficient to ensure that any required improvements in democratic standards are achieved without recourse to that severe form of action.
We are under no illusions as to the significance of the decision that Council of Europe parliamentarians will need to reach shortly. There are developments that continue to provoke disquiet, some of which have been mentioned. I shall mention two.
The first is Chechnya. We all recall the horrors of the Russian intervention in Chechnya that began just over a year ago. There was something particularly shocking about the brutality of the assault, the disregard for civilian life, the wanton destruction and the sheer incompetence with which the operation was carried out.
It is most regrettable that a negotiated settlement has still not been reached in Chechnya. All hon. Members will be aware that fighting of varying degrees of intensity continues. Particularly violent scenes occurred recently with the capture and recapture of Chechnya's second city, Gudermes. We deplore the civilian casualties which arose from that incident. At the same time, we condemn the most recent terrorist incident in Kislyar. It is welcome news that the majority of the hostages have been released. We hope that the rest—I believe about 150—will also be released unharmed. Those incidents underline the need for a negotiated solution, and also serve to emphasise the difficulties in reaching one.
We shall continue to deprecate violence, and call for a peaceful settlement. We shall continue to call for human rights abuses to be investigated, but the plain fact is that the conditions for a settlement acceptable to both sides have still not been found. Fears for its security made the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe assistance group withdraw to Moscow, but I am pleased to inform the House that it returned to Grozny last weekend.
The second area of concern is Russia's political future. To put it simply, there are those who would prefer Council of Europe membership to be put off at least until after the Russian presidential elections in June. However, despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, the parliamentary elections were held in Russia on 17 December, and they have been unanimously judged as free and fair.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) can testify to this. They were official British monitors and Government observers. What is more, assertions about Russian apathy and lack of interest in democracy were confounded by the very substantial turnout of 65 per cent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East has referred to the dangers from nationalists, and in particular from Mr. Zhirinovsky. The communists under Mr. Zyuganov were even more successful in the recent elections. There are very real dangers, and we should not attempt to hide them, but equally we should not adopt an alarmist approach towards them.
While we wish that the Communist party was readier to accept the need for further economic and political reform, it appears to accept the democratic process and the need for Russia's leaders henceforth to be chosen by the ballot box. As long as its leaders do that, there is no reason why the possibility of their coming to power should present an obstacle to Russia's membership of the Council of Europe.
Indeed, to postpone again Russia's membership after elections judged as free and fair would be a humiliating rebuff. It would be bound to strengthen the hand of those who argue that Russia demeans itself by attempting to enter the Council of Europe. It would give fresh force to those Russians who argue that it is not right for Russia to participate in bodies which give foreigners the possibility of interfering in its internal affairs.
Our hope and intention is that membership of the Council of Europe will provide a catalyst for further progress on human rights issues. More generally, both we and our European Union partners favour early Russian accession. The Council of Europe has a crucial role to play in bringing Russia into the European family of nations and as a means to provide practical support in entrenching western values.
It is, of course, for the parliamentarians of the Council of Europe, not for the United Kingdom Government, to determine the outcome of Russia's application during their debate on 25 January. That debate will be conducted with the full participation of the United Kingdom delegation, led by Lord Finsberg, to whom I should like to pay great tribute. I had many dealings with him when he was a Minister in the House. He was a superb Minister, and he does this job equally well.

Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I do not have time to do so.
The Government would welcome a positive recommendation from that debate, which will allow the Russian Federation to join the main stream of European life, through the Council of Europe. A Europe in which Russia adheres fully to Council of Europe ideals and plays a positive and constructive part in the activities of that organisation will be a safer, freer and happier place.

Royal Irish Regiment

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am privileged to have the opportunity to raise this subject. In doing so, I must in the first instance pay tribute to the work of the Royal Irish Regiment and its predecessor, the Ulster Defence Regiment, for serving the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I am equally aware that, as more than 40,000 soldiers served in the regiments, there are likely to be some who did not match up to the required standards. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority served faithfully, displaying remarkable courage, loyalty and devotion to duty. They did not have changes that Regular Army regiments have. Whether the latter came for three-month, six-month or two-year spells of duty, there was always a change, but soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment, as in the Ulster Defence Regiment, were on duty virtually 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and lived in the communities they served. They and their families were, accordingly, constant targets.
In that context, I must raise some concerns that have surfaced among some constituents, which have been shared by colleagues in my party as we have discussed the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) mentioned one of his constituents, whose commanding officer had assured him that he would be retained until a particular date. The CO was transferred and the new CO saw no reason to stand by the commitment. Chancy decisions have kept coming to light and raised concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) shares cases with us, as some of the rest of us have discovered, in which the tendency has been for soldiers to be discharged, as far as we can discover, only through guilt by association because somewhere along the line a relative had some strange connections. For example, a Scotsman who had served for years in the regiment was discharged—apparently because a distant relative had been brought on a charge before the courts many years previously and been acquitted. We suspect that that was the only reason for his discharge.
I shall illustrate my argument with the cases of three constituents. The first is Private A. C. I recognise that all Members of Parliament face the difficulty of delays in responses to correspondence. I wrote to this soldier's commanding officer on 6 February 1995. I was speedily acknowledged in a letter dated 8 February, which contained the information that the case was going to regimental headquarters—the focus for such matters. On 28 April, Lord Henley responded from the Ministry of Defence, simply to confirm that the soldier's
services were no longer required".
Private A. C. had put in for a non-commissioned officer course and was recommended for it. Under section 9.414 of the Queen's regulations of 1985, he was simply discharged. Lord Henley assured me that there was
no question of stigma being attached".
In a small community where people know one another quite intimately, whether as serving members of the regiment, relatives or neighbours, how could no stigma be attached when no rational explanation for the discharge was forthcoming?
Private A. C. refused to sign the form for his discharge. Recruitment to the regiment was still going on and, although a part-timer, he was on full-time duties. When I pressed the Department, Earl Howe responded, on 28 September, concerning the discharge on 27 February, saying that there was
no reason to suppose that the necessity for his discharge will have altered. For that reason I am afraid I can see no useful purpose in encouraging him to apply for re-enlistment".
How can one claim that no stigma is attached to a person who is discharged in such circumstances? He was even barred from applying for re-enlistment. As the old statement has it, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and the matter raises concern.
What a way that was to treat someone who has served his country. It reminds us of the heroes of the 1914–18 war, when it was Tommy this and Tommy that, but when they came back it was tommyrot, was it not?
The second case is that of W. D., who joined on a part-time basis in October 1972. He rose to the rank of sergeant in October 1979 and was made redundant from his civilian job in 1984. At that point, he was asked to become OPS/maintenance, with full-time hours, but still on a part-time contract. Throughout his service, his confidentials never fell below "Very Good". In 1985, he suffered two aneurisms, which resulted in two operations in 13 weeks. In August 1994, when interviewed by his officer commanding, he was told that he would not be signed on again in October 1994, although, interestingly enough, another officer took him back for six months to work in the officer commanding's office.
In October 1994, W. D. was still three years under the upper age limit. At the same time, a corporal of the same age and in the same circumstances, was signed on for one year. That was the norm for those over 50 years of age with medicals—they were signed on yearly until the upper limit.
W. D's discharge declared him fit for a job in the RIR, but not for his civilian trade, which had been that of a welder-steelworker. When asked to sign the reason for his discharge, he wrote
made redundant after 22¢ years service".
As I understand it—the Minister may be in a position to clarify and confirm—the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 provided for application of certain parts, for example section 31 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, to the armed forces. No enabling order has been made to implement that, however. Why not? Is that a way of saving money at the expense of those who have already served the kingdom for a comparative pittance?
If the relevant legislation had been in operation, it would have enforced the EC rules maintaining that there should be no difference between part-time and full-time workers. It should be emphasised that, although on a part-time contract, Sergeant W. D. had been working full-time hours since becoming OPS/maintenance in the regiment, working between 48 and 56 hours per week. The regiment advertises under an equal opportunities banner, but in cases such as this it seeks cover under servant of the Crown legislation.
Having pressed the matter because I was concerned about it, I received a response from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. In a letter dated 29 August, he


admitted that W. D. did not have a clean bill of health, and had been medically downgraded to a category below the minimum necessary for retention in the Army. He further stated:
he left on completion of his engagement on 25 April 1995".
W. D. did not have much option; he was not re-engaged.
The letter continued:
a former part-time member of the Home Service element of the Royal Irish Regiment, Mr. D. is ineligible for a redundancy package".
As W. D. had been working full-time hours on a part-time contract, the Ministry did not consider it worth while to compensate him for his discharge.
It was interesting to discover that W. D. was not medically downgraded in November 1984 and January 1995 after his operations; he was re-engaged for successive three-year periods in 1985, 1988 and 1991, and for six months in October 1994. In a letter dated 6 November 1995, Earl Howe admitted that W. D. had been medically downgraded, but claimed that his condition—largely attributable to smoking—did not merit a medical discharge. Perhaps I have a simple mind, but the reasoning appears twisted; perhaps the Minister can help me to unravel it. If W. D. had a medical condition and was not fit to continue, surely he could have been medically discharged and thus have qualified, if not for redundancy, at least for a pension after the service that he had given the regiment.
Would it be possible for W. D. to be supplied with his medical notes? Having requested such notes on behalf of a constituent in similar circumstances, I was denied them on grounds of confidentiality, but I had requested them not for myself but for a patient, and I believe that patients' notes are no longer confidential to doctors.
The third case that I wish to raise is rather different. It concerns someone whom I shall call J. G. My investigation revealed a degree of contradiction between the view of the commanding officer and the regiment, and that of the soldier concerned. The case, however, belongs to a category that causes considerable concern. The number of part-time members of the regiment was being reduced, usually on grounds of residence, when it was claimed that the soldiers concerned posed a security risk. J. G. found that unacceptable, as do I. He had served in North Antrim, but was then transferred to Belfast—to my constituency, in fact. While he was working there, it was suggested that he posed a security risk in the area, but if a volunteer accepts the risks involved I must be persuaded that he or she should not be allowed to serve. Indeed, people in such circumstances can often pick up information that is vital to the security services.
This case appears to involve a clash between a serving soldier and an officer. I do not refer to the commanding officer. I received letters about the case from the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). Only because I continued to press the matter did I receive a glimmer of information, suggesting that J. G.'s failing could have been an over-enthusiastic commitment to his regiment. He was not prepared to hide his membership of what he considered to be a proud regiment in which he was doing useful work.
That resulted in a 25-minute interview that was described as unfortunately becoming confrontational. Only three months earlier, however, the commanding

officer involved had commended J. G. for his work on a course in England following a letter to the CO from the Chief Constable praising J. G.'s role in a bomb disposal incident.
I believe that those three examples may he repeated throughout Northern Ireland. If someone is not doing his work properly, a good employer should sack him, giving reasons; but something is wrong when an employer suddenly dispenses with people whose work has been commended, and gives no adequate reason. It appears that soldiers in the RIR and UDR who had given long and faithful service have been released as part of a money-saving exercise. Those soldiers were not overly well paid for the hours that they served. It is scandalous if they were discharged on questionable grounds, and if those who were medically unfit for Army duties were not given proper pensions or redundancy payments.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether a study akin to that into the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being carried out into the future role of the Royal Irish Regiment? I should like to think that a regiment that has played a useful part in the service of the country during a period of internal trouble, and whose main company is working with the rest of the Army, can continue to give service in Her Majesty's forces.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for giving us an opportunity to reflect on the Royal Irish Regiment and the exceptionally valiant service that it and its predecessors—the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers—have given the Crown over the past 25 years. It is especially welcome, given that we have only just passed the 25th anniversary of the mustering of the UDR in 1970.
The Royal Irish Regiment is a young regiment by Army standards. It was formed only in 1992 by the amalgamation of the Royal Irish Rangers—itself created as recently as 1968, although with far older antecedents in the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers—with the UDR. It is also the largest infantry regiment in the British Army, and contains the largest infantry battalion in the Army, the 3rd Royal Irish at Portadown.
The regiment is unique for other reasons, including its mixture of general service and home service battalions and the prominent and extraordinarily valued role played by part-time soldiers.
The operations of the Royal Irish Regiment and its predecessors have been of a quality, standard and challenge that is unique in all Army services. Its role was, and is, to serve alongside the general service battalions of the Army in their support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The regiment recruits from the local community, with service restricted to Northern Ireland. The local affiliations are clearly discernable in the structure of the six Royal Irish home service battalions, each with its own tactical area of responsibility exactly aligned with RUC divisional boundaries.
The hon. Gentleman is keenly aware that the 7th Royal Irish is based in his constituency. We therefore acknowledge his expertise in these matters. Although


Soldiers in the UDR were subject to Queen's regulations, their unique role and the nature of their terms and conditions of service meant that Queen's regulations needed to be supplemented to reflect the differences between the UDR and the Regular Army. When the Royal Irish Regiment was formed in July 1992, it became an integral part of the Regular Army for the first time.
Before continuing, I wish to pay tribute to the dedication and exceptional bravery of members of both the Ulster Defence Regiment and the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in performing their difficult, dangerous, but always vital, task. They have acted in a way which people on this side of the water cannot understand, in circumstances sometimes so awful that they are impossible to describe, and with such gallantry that anyone who knew his or her true history would feel humble before it. They have made a huge and invaluable contribution to bringing about the current improved conditions in Northern Ireland.
The House should never forget that home service soldiers, by the very nature of their duty, live as part of the community that they protect, possibly even sharing their daytime work places with members of terrorist organisations. They have placed themselves and their families at enormous risk in their commitment to the fight against terrorism and we must never lose sight of the fact that, over the past 25 years, 201 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment have died as a result of terrorist action. A further 49 ex-regiment soldiers were murdered after leaving the Army and many, many more have been wounded or injured. The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to their memory.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South said that it has been suggested that there is some kind of hidden agenda to run down the home service element of the Royal Irish Regiment. I know that that is a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman and that he and some of his colleagues have maintained, correctly, a steady examination of our commitment to the home service battalions. He should have no fears on that count. I give him a categorical assurance that a rundown of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment is simply not on the agenda.
I understand, however, how the hon. Gentleman's concerns may have arisen. Regrettably, and despite all our efforts, there has been a gradual decline in strength, particularly of part-time soldiers, from a high point in the 1970s. Full-time strength has been virtually unchanged until recently, when recruiting has suffered from the same problems as affect the Army as a whole, particularly the infantry. There has, however, been a drop of about 8 per cent. in part-time numbers, amounting to a decline of about 200 each year.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the Minister of State has made, but I have been told that there are applications to join the regiment part time but that the regiment cannot cope with the numbers.

Mr. Soames: If I may carry on and develop my argument, I hope to cover all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
During the past 12 months, 57 full-time and 285 part-time members of the regiment have been discharged for all reasons, including completion of service, voluntary retirement and on medical or disciplinary grounds.

The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was connected with discharges on administrative grounds. It is a complex and difficult area and I shall try to answer in full the points that he made. He will understand that I cannot deal with individual cases. He drew attention to a number of soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment who have been administratively discharged under section 9.414 of the Queen's regulations. That section, in common with the similar provision in the UDR regulations before it, is a catch-all for discharges that do not come under other, more clearly defined, sections.
Administrative discharge may be used in the Army's interests in a variety of circumstances, including temperamental unsuitability or failure to meet basic training or fitness requirements. It may also be invoked at a soldier's request and has been used where individuals have been misinformed about their circumstances or terms and conditions of service; or where an individual has concerns for the safety of his or her family because of the nature of his or her employment in the Army.
I should also make it clear that the section applies, like all others in the Queen's regulations, across the whole of the Regular Army, and it is always applied with great care. In every case, soldiers can see the application for discharge and individuals are given an opportunity to discuss the application with their commanding officer. In every case, soldiers are given at least 48 hours in which to take advice and consider whether to make a statement about the application for discharge. All this is carefully considered by the brigade commander before the papers are submitted to the Ministry of Defence for final decision. It is an elaborate procedure—deliberately so—to ensure that the individual's interests are taken into full consideration.
In a handful of cases, security implications may prevent full disclosure to the soldier of the exact details of the reasons for discharge. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into further detail, but I give him my assurance that, on the rare occasions when they occur, such cases are given the most thorough scrutiny and must be completely justified before action is taken to discharge a soldier.
Soldiers leave the Army for many reasons, mainly at their own request. The policy on discharge is applied evenly across the whole Army according to the same regulations and policies. There is no policy to apply section 9.414 more rigorously or frequently in the Royal Irish Regiment, whether general service, home service, full time or part time, than in the rest of the Army.
In the Army as a whole, that type of administrative discharge was used in some 800 cases last year. Just four of them were in the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. It is a mechanism that is used when it is appropriate to the circumstance, no more and no less.
I cannot debate individual cases across the Floor of the House, not least because I do not know the details. If the hon. Member chooses to get in touch with me, I shall happily have them investigated. He mentioned pensions. Because soldiers of the home service battalions were required to serve only in Northern Ireland, their terms and conditions of service in the UDR were structured differently from those for soldiers with a global commitment to service. I recognise that the alignment of the two systems has created anomalies and problems, and I have a great deal of sympathy on that score.
Between 1970 and 1977, all members of the UDR completing five years' service were eligible for a pension payable on reaching 55 years of age. From 1977, all new


members of the UDR and, from 1992 of the Royal Irish Regiment, have been subject to the terms of the armed forces pension scheme. Under those terms, payment of an immediate pension before the age of 60 requires completion of 22 years' service.
In normal circumstances, soldiers in the regiment can expect their service to end after a maximum of 22 years. Those with fewer than 22 years' service but more than two are also eligible for a pension, the size of which depends on their length of service, but it is payable on reaching the age of 60.
We recognise that there are problems. Where possible, we seek to ensure that individuals' needs are met through extensions of service, if necessary to the age of 60, provided that they are fit, there is work for them to do, and they are not blocking the structure of the regiment. Yesterday, I received the Duke of Abercorn and Sir Dennis Faulkner to discuss one or two of those questions, on which they made the most robust and powerful representations. We shall deal with them carefully and in detail.
Re-engagement has never been an automatic right and it has, rightly, always been at the discretion of commanding officers. It will remain necessary to balance the wishes of individuals against the needs of the service. I know that applications for extensions of service up to a total of 22 years will be dealt with sympathetically, but I would not wish to bind the hands of those in command with any general undertaking.
However, I hope that, in future, when employability in future is considered, it will be done across the regiment rather than on a battalion basis. My Department is looking carefully at how that might be done.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the continued importance of the home service element of the Royal Irish Regiment in maintaining security in Northern Ireland. I have stated unequivocally that there is absolutely no policy of deliberately running down the home service strength. Indeed, I ask hon. Members from the Province to draw the attention of their constituents, male and female, Catholic and Protestant, to the value of service in the Royal Irish Regiment and the many splendid opportunities that such service can provide for the attainment of recognised qualifications.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about some individual cases and I shall deal with those as sympathetically as I can if he will raise them in detail with me.
May I conclude with my own warm tribute to the Royal Irish Regiment? No other regiment in the British Army has a contemporary record of such gallantry and distinction. The House will wish to salute it and all its deeds.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Human Rights

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to recommend derogations from any of the United Kingdom's international human rights commitments. [6838]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who, as the House will know, is in the far east.
We have no current plans for derogations beyond those already in force for the European convention on human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the Minister. Why have the Government felt it necessary to start launching attacks on the European convention on human rights, and on the European Court of Human Rights simply because they do not like some of its recent judgments? If the Government take that approach to their human rights obligations, how can they go to China and instruct the Chinese in the importance of human rights, and how can they encourage central eastern European countries to join the Council of Europe? Instead of attacking the convention, would not it be better to show virtue and incorporate it into our law?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I found the speech that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to make very illuminating. Can I take it that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the court's judgment on the Gibraltar affair was correct? Conservative Members believe that it was a disgraceful judgment, and we deeply resent it. However, the European convention on human rights is a different issue. The Government support the European convention, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. We believe that it is important, and we have not attacked it. We intend to continue to support the convention fully and, indeed, we have just signed up to do so for the next five years.

Mr. Galloway: How can the Minister expect the House to take him seriously when he talks about Britain's human rights commitments when, in every country in the world, there is editorial discussion today about the act of shameful obeisance to the Saudi royal dictatorship in Riyadh of which the Government are guilty? Does not the leaked Vickers memorandum demonstrate that the British security services, British Ministers and British gun salesmen have been involved in a conspiracy against human rights in the case of Professor Muhammad al-Masari?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I wondered when the hon. Gentleman was going to get to the point of his question. I believe that the majority of the British people would fully support the action that the Government have taken in the case of Dr. al-Masari. He came here using false papers, under false pretences, and he has used our hospitality to try to pull down a friendly regime. If the Saudi regime were to fall, and instability were to occur in

the middle east, that would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom and the free west. So the hon. Gentleman's question is entirely misplaced.

Mr. Trimble: I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Government support the European convention on human rights. Does the Minister realise that all the major constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland have supported the incorporation of the European convention into domestic law? Does he also realise that, during the recent inter-party talks process, the Northern Ireland Office appeared to support incorporation at one stage?
In my party, we share the Minister's concern over recent decisions of the European Court, especially on the Gibraltar matter. That decision was falsely represented as a ruling that the actions of the SAS were a breach of the convention, which they were not—there was an adverse finding on one minor aspect of that controversial case. Has any thought been given in the Council of Europe to a way in which individual decisions and controversial issues—no court is perfect and there are good reasons to believe that the European Court erred on that point—can be considered further?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I note what the hon. Gentleman says in regard to the convention on human rights and his wish to incorporate it into domestic law. The Government do not wish to fetter the right of the House in that manner but, as I said, we fully support the convention on human rights and all that flows from it.
In regard to the hon. Gentleman's other points, it is extremely important that what happens in Northern Ireland is fully within the scope of the convention on human rights. The Government will ensure that it is.

Russia

Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's relations with Russia. [6839]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We enjoy a close and co-operative partnership with Russia.

Mr. Etherington: Will the Minister assure the House, in view of the escalating danger in Chechnya, which has been worsened by the hostage crisis this week, that the Government will use every endeavour to urge restraint on both sides in the dispute to try to bring about a peaceful settlement? Will he state what is being done in terms of European security to try to ensure that the situation does not escalate further? Will he guarantee to the House that regardless of commercial considerations, human rights will be paramount?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do everything that they can to help to bring the Chechen problem to a peaceful solution. It is important that that should be so. There was a debate on Russia in the House at 1 pm and if the hon. Gentleman had attended it, he would have heard that point expounded in greater detail. I assure him that it is extremely important that human rights remain paramount. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. Elletson: What effect has the war in Chechnya had on Britain's relations with Russia? Does my hon. Friend agree that while Russia's brutal campaign in Chechnya


continues, it would be wrong—indeed, it would be nothing short of appeasement—to reward its leaders and its Government with membership of the Council of Europe?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend was present in the debate earlier. He and other hon. Members may like to refresh their memories from Hansard. The Chechnya problem is terrible. The behaviour of the Russian forces was bad and the behaviour of some of the rebels has also been bad. We have condemned both sides in the war equally. We wish the matter to be brought to a peaceful solution as soon as possible.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that although Russia, by reason of its history, its size and its influence, should enjoy special status, United Kingdom policy should be based on the legitimate expectation that the programme of economic and political reform will be continued? Will the Government support that programme rather than any named individual?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will do everything that they can to support the programme of reform.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received in favour of an extension of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. [6840]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Several other member states have told us that they favour more majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that a Conservative Government will not agree to any extension of qualified majority voting? Will he contrast that with the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats which would lead to the abandonment of the British veto and a further erosion of the sovereignty of this Parliament?

Mr. Davis: I can give a categorical assurance. We have made it clear that we oppose a further extension of qualified majority voting. We have heard the arguments of those who wish to see an erosion of the national veto, including those from the Opposition. We are not persuaded. We also note that their various arguments conceal many differences of view about the areas in which they wish to abandon unanimity. We can be clear on this: we will not give up our veto.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister recognise that the only advantage, in many cases, of retaining qualified majority voting arises when the United Kingdom finds itself in a minority? In those cases when it is necessary to make alliances, and when there is a majority opinion supporting very great changes on matters such as the transport of animals, it is important to make alliances. Are not there cases in which majority voting would assist the United Kingdom rather than the contrary?

Mr. Davis: When we came to our decision on that policy, we made a careful assessment and undertook the type of analysis that the hon. Gentleman has presented, of occasions when it is to our advantage to have majority voting and when it is not to our advantage. I made the comment that I just made, on the basis of that assessment.

Mr. Wilkinson: While I welcome my hon. Friend's comments as far as they go, may I say to him that some aspects of qualified majority voting are fundamentally flawed and perverse? For example, on fishing policy, landlocked nations have a say on fishing in what should be our waters. Will my hon. Friend give his hon. Friends an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will seek to roll back that insidious process?

Mr. Davis: What I can assure my hon. Friend is that we understand only too well the worries about fishing policy and some of its inefficiencies. It does not necessarily help us to have unanimity in that aspect of policy. There are policy areas in which it can work the other way against us. However, we are very clear in our minds that that is a matter that needs examining.

Ms Quin: Given that the Government had previously favoured a substantial increase in majority voting, especially at the time of the Single European Act but also at the time of the Maastricht treaty, will the Minister confirm that a change in policy has taken place, and that he is saying that now there are absolutely no circumstances in which the Government would envisage further majority voting, even if that meant blocking or jeopardising the enlargement of the European Union, which we all want?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Lady obviously was not listening to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I said clearly that we made that judgment on the basis of what was in the British national interest. That is a judgment that assesses every sector of European policy and decides whether it is right to have what we have now. We decided that we do not want majority voting to be progressed any further. The hon. Lady's suggestion that that will somehow block the enlargement process appears to me completely misconceived.

European Union

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the European Parliament to discuss developments in the European Union. [6841]

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit the European Parliament in the first half of 1996.

Mr. Marshall: The Government have said that they wish the European Parliament to concentrate on tackling fraud and waste in the European budget. When the Secretary of State next visits the European Parliament, will he therefore explain why he is opposing the proposals to allow Members of the European Parliament to amend wasteful agricultural spending, which accounts for the majority of fraud in the European budget and adds an estimated £20 a week to the tax and food bill of an average family of four in this country? How does opposing such a measure accord with Britain's national interest?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinary presumption about which way the European Parliament would vote on such matters. It has not exactly been inclined to vote in favour of economy in the past. We have criticised the European Parliament in the past for not using the powers that it has. It has just commissioned its temporary commission of inquiry, and we commend it for that.

Mr. Cash: What will the Government's policy be with regard to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons, regarding fraud in the European Community, and the recommendation of improvement in the scrutiny processes that that report contains? Will he also consider whether we shall have a White Paper in the near future?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend attempts to pre-empt another hon. Member's question later on the Order Paper, and I shall answer that in due course. My hon. Friend knows that we have been vigorous in opposition to the items that cause fraud and in promoting measures to tackle fraud, and we shall continue with that vigour in future.

Cambodia

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EC colleagues regarding the situation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement. [6842]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Cambodia has been discussed recently both in multilateral discussions with EU partners and bilaterally with individual countries. We are working for continued political and economic reform there.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Minister noticed that Cambodia is slipping back into some of its bad old habits? I think, for instance, of the former Foreign Minister who was arrested a couple of months ago; of democratically elected members of the National Assembly who dissent from the Government line being illegally expelled from that assembly; and of high-level corruption. Will he make it clear to the Cambodian Government that, while the international community is willing to do its best to fund the introduction of democracy to Cambodia, it is not willing to fund another tyranny?

Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are of course keeping a close eye on developments in Cambodia, and we hope that the Cambodian Government will take careful note of the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly in December which highlights the importance of good governance, the rule of law, multi-party democracy, freedom of expression and the protection of human rights. I am also well aware of the arrest of Prince Sirivudh, who I believe is now in Paris.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Foreign Ministers of the other European Union countries about the preparations for the intergovernmental conference. [6844]

Mr. David Davis: Preparations for the intergovernmental conference were discussed most recently at the Madrid Council on 15 and 16 December.

Mr. Hain: What proposals does the Minister plan to put to the IGC for tackling fraud in Europe? After the November Court of Auditors report on the scandalous amount of fraud in the European budget, is there not a strong case for increasing the anti-fraud powers of European institutions; or will the Minister and the Government be blocked from doing that by following Mrs. Thatcher's lurch to the right and backing their right-wing extremists, instead of defending the interests of British taxpayers?

Mr. Davis: Had the hon. Gentleman read the report carefully, he would have seen that there is much less fraud in this country than in most other European countries, and that we control it more effectively than any other country. He cannot therefore take that line.
As to the lurch to the right, I shall leave it to another party to deal with.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering preparations for the IGC, does my hon. Friend agree that the doctrine of subsidiarity ought to be used not merely to stop additional powers going to Europe but to look at existing European powers, thereby reducing the so-called acquis communautaire? Does he agree that that would be to the advantage of parliamentary government in this country, and to the advantage of Great Britain?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is exactly right: that is what has been happening. An Anglo-German and an Anglo-French list of such measures have been looked at. In the past year, 61 regulations have been removed; in July alone, 14 were removed from the energy sector. The attempt to reduce and to roll back the amount of regulation coming from Europe is very much in line with British Government policy.

Mr. Radice: Has the Minister noted a Gallup poll carried out for the European Movement showing that 56 per cent. of respondents want closer co-operation with our European partners, with Britain playing a leading role?

Mr. Davis: Unlike the Labour party, we do not devise our policies from Gallup polls. The analysis to which the hon. Gentleman refers showed a number of other things too. It showed that a majority supported the Government's line of keeping open their options on monetary union—a point that the hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed.

Mr. Jenkin: Speaking of polls, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to various Confederation of British Industry polls showing that, although people may want to keep open the option on the single currency, they are also against further and unnecessary integration with Europe? Can he explain how we can have a single currency without further integration in Europe? Do not these findings display the shortcomings of opinion polls?

Mr. Davis: I am entirely with my hon. Friend in the matter of the shortcomings of opinion polls. I shall not attempt today a lecture on the constitutional implications of a single currency—save to say that all these points reinforce the wisdom of the Prime Minister's securing an opt-out for Britain at Maastricht.

Mr. MacShane: As the Minister seeks to navigate through the shoals and currents of the intergovernmental conference process, does he find helpful the statement from Japan by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that pro-European Tory Members should leave the party?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman should quote more accurately—even remotely accurately might be helpful. The Japanese understand only too well that our commitment to a European single market, in conjunction with deregulation and the commitment to competitiveness, leads them to invest most of their investment in Europe in this country.

Political Union

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union. [6846]

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has had regular discussions with his European Union counterparts on a wide range of issues of common interest.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain can exert much more influence in the world and so protect British interests much better if we act in conjunction with our European Union partners, rather than try to go it alone?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that I agree with him. This summer and autumn, a large number of newspaper headlines, referring to my work on the reflection group, said that Britain was isolated on this, that or the other, but when those same journalists approached reflection group members and said, "Did you not find Britain obstructionist?" the response was, "No. Britain was extremely constructive in its approach." That is yielding dividends in a variety of areas, which I shall come to later.

Mr. McAvoy: The Minister has been disingenuous in his response to the point about the Secretary of State for Defence's statements. Bearing in mind the comments made by the main questioner, does not the Minister accept that such divisions within this country's governing party damage this country's interests when he represents it in Europe?

Mr. Davis: Our European allies understand only too well the British Government's position, but, if anyone is being disingenuous, it is the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he should have been here just before Christmas to watch the interesting sight of the Labour Front-Bench team putting one policy and everyone else on the Labour Benches putting another. They cannot talk to us about division in our party.

Mr. Dykes: As the Minister has a new year's resolution to be enthusiastic about our European Union membership, will he say in detailed aspects how that enthusiasm will be expressed in the coming months?

Mr. Davis: I am tempted to say, "In the Division Lobby," but I shall not. One of the ways in which that enthusiasm is manifesting itself is in promoting our view of what is best for the European Union. That involves a

Europe that is decentralised, has a high competitiveness level, is deregulated and respects nation states' rights. All those matters are good not just for Britain, but for Europe.

Famagusta

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy for the future of Famagusta. [6847]

Mr. David Davis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that I made closing the debate on Famagusta in the House on 29 November. He will remember that, at that time, I spoke at some length.

Mr. O'Hara: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he please take the opportunity to reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the negotiations for Cyprus's accession to full European Community membership to depend on a prior solution to the Cyprus problem and, furthermore, that he will not countenance any solution to the problem that is not based on one nation state's undivided sovereignty in the island of Cyprus?

Mr. Davis: What I shall say to the hon. Gentleman is that we will allow no one outside the European Union to veto that process by their actions, but Union accession is designed to help with the solution to the division of Cyprus—the Cyprus problem—rather than to hinder it.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that great concern exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House about Cyprus's continued division? Is not it a gross denial of human rights that ordinary Cypriots can stand outside Famagusta and see their family homes, which have been in their family for many generations but in which they have not been allowed to live for more than 21 years?

Mr. Davis: I hear and understand all too well what my hon. Friend says. The British Government have played, and continue to play, an active role in endeavouring to find a solution to that grievous problem. Famagusta is only too sad a symbol of that problem.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On the assumption that the question refers not to the city of Famagusta but to the empty properties in its suburbs, can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will bring every pressure to bear upon the Greek Cypriot Administration to accept and bring into operation the recommendations of the United Nations for confidence-building measures to allow people back into the empty suburbs, such measures having already been accepted by the Turkish Cypriots?

Mr. Davis: I do not intend to pick and choose between sides in this issue. Her Majesty's Government will continue, as we have already, to bring every pressure to bear to bring about the development of the confidence-building measures in Varosha or new Famagusta, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call it.

National Parliaments

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about greater participation by national Parliaments in the affairs of (a) the European Community and (b) the European Union respectively; and what response he has given. [6848]

Mr. David Davis: We have discussed the role of national Parliaments in the European Union directly with


other member states and within the reflection group. We have made it clear that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of an increased role for national Parliaments in the European Union.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that paragraph 14 of the Government's response to the Select Committee on European Legislation about the place of national Parliaments says that
national parliaments are, and must remain, the primary focus of democratic legitimacy"?
Can the Minister explain, therefore, why, by coincidence, Command Paper 3050, which is a convention of 47 articles establishing a European police office and which has been laid on the Table under the Ponsonby rule, has just a reference in the appendix to the votes and proceedings and has now had about 10 days out of the 21 before it is ratified? Would not it be right for the Minister to approach the Leader of the House to suggest that we debate that convention next week? Unless we do so, the Government will be seen to be saying one thing and doing another.

Mr. Davis: I commend the hon. Gentleman on the cleverness and ingenuity of his question. He knows only too well that we fought very hard to ensure that proper notice is given of measures under the European Community and the other pillars. I shall look at the matter and see What can be done to expedite scrutiny. I cannot be drawn beyond that.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that passing legislation is a key role of national Parliaments? Does he share my concern at the continued encroachment of the European Court in legislation passed by the House when it has retrospectively overridden the wishes of the House? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has a point in his concern about retrospective overriding by the European Court of matters upon which the House has decided. However, we are signed up to the treaty and we expect the rule of law to apply to other countries in Europe. My hon. Friend may be aware that within the reflection group Britain has asked that we consider the possibility of limiting the retrospectivity of European Court judgments so as to make them more predictable and acceptable to the nation states of Europe.

Mr. Sheerman: If we want national parliamentarians to have more access to and, involvement in Europe, would not it be a good idea for the Government to back a move for a centre in Brussels where national parliamentarians could have meetings, make common cause with each other and have simultaneous translations, which would make that accessibility a reality? Will the Minister join in that campaign?

Mr. Tony Banks: I feel another junket coming on.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has it right; there could be another junket coming on. Although we are in favour of greater democracy and despite the fact that an arrangement already exists whereby the House will fund visits to European institutions, I do not see a great deal of benefit from the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The question refers to
participation by national Parliaments in the affairs of (a) the European Community and (b) the European Union".
Would it not be more appropriate for the people of this country to be consulted about the European Community and future developments in the European Union? Does my hon. Friend accept that the only way to do that would be to hold a referendum on future political integration within the European Union?

Mr. Davis: The House is elected to represent the people of this country, and few people do it more vocally than my hon. Friend. As my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher said on one occasion, it is for us to take the hard decisions and then to make them stick.

Nigeria

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government are taking to put pressure on the military Government in Nigeria. [6849]

Mr. Hanley: Further to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House on 29 November, Official Report, column 1180, and my answer of 11 December, Official Report, columns 691–92, we have co-sponsored a United Nations General Assembly resolution strongly critical of the military regime in Nigeria, which was adopted with a large majority. On 20 December last, my right hon. and learned Friend attended the first meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which will follow up on Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth.

Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the military regime in Nigeria continues to be brutal and ruthless? That was demonstrated only last week with the arrest of the Financial Times correspondent Paul Adams for publishing an article on an Ogoni festival. Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that unless immediate and specific action is taken by the regime to promote democracy and protect human rights, the British Government should impose further sanctions? If so, will he state clearly what action he wants Nigeria to take, and within what time scale, and say what further sanctions his Government will impose if the brutality continues?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady speaks for many hon. Members. We want progress to be made in Nigeria because the current situation is terrible. The United Kingdom is in the forefront of those taking positive steps against the Nigerian regime. I do not need to go into detail on the full list of European measures that we have helped to introduce. We are also in the forefront, together with our Commonwealth partners, in initiating and supporting Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth. We have noted the calls to sever trade links and to impose an oil embargo. We are certainly considering a wide range of options with our EU and other partners and we have not ruled out anything at this stage.
Paul Adams, the resident Financial Times correspondent in Nigeria, was arrested by the Nigerian state security service in Ogoniland during an Ogoni day rally on 4 January. The consular official has twice visited Mr. Adams in prison. Apparently, he is being well looked after, but he should be released and we are pushing for that to be at an early date. I understand that there has been


some problem with the necessary journalistic documentation, but that is no reason to keep an innocent man in prison.

Mr. King: I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said about Paul Adams, whose parents are constituents of mine. It appears that he is being held in detention on a very flimsy charge. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the most immediate pressure will be put on the Nigerian Government to release him?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the subject with me earlier today. I gave him an assurance then, which I repeat now, that we shall do everything that we can to secure the release of Mr. Adams as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Despite what the Minister has said, does he accept that the mixed messages that have emanated from the Government in the past have enabled the Nigerian Government to disregard the normal behaviour of a civilised state, as is shown by the arrest of a British journalist? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire): what is the progress that the Nigerians must make, and within what time scale, that would allow us to accept them back into the family of nations? Conversely, at what stage will the Government decide to lead the demand for effective and meaningful sanctions, including trade sanctions, against Nigeria to ensure that it conforms to acceptable international standards?

Mr. Hanley: We are acting in conjunction with the European Union, our Commonwealth partners, the United Nations and others who are all deeply interested in trying to ensure that the measures that we have taken are effective. We will consider absolutely anything further to ensure that progress is made in Nigeria. I cannot give an exact time scale. That is for others to determine. What we are doing as part of the international initiative is effective. We hope that it will be so effective that Nigeria will return to the Commonwealth as a full member. If she does not, she will certainly be thrown out—and within a time scale with which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's latest proposals for the intergovernmental conference. [6850]

Mr. David Davis: We have set out our approach to the intergovernmental conference on a number of occasions, including during the debate at the Madrid European Council on 7 December. We want an IGC that improves the operation of the European Union, especially with a view to further enlargement, and one that makes the Union more relevant and acceptable to people.

Mr. Winnick: May I make a helpful suggestion to the Government? In order to accommodate both sides of the Tory parliamentary party—the rival factions on this issue—would it not be possible for both sides to be represented at the intergovernmental conference? One

side could be led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other by the Defence Secretary. Is that not a helpful suggestion?

Mr. Davis: That suggestion is about as helpful as one has come to expect from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jessel: At the intergovernmental conference, will the Government constantly bear it in mind that the British people want only a minimal share in governing continental countries and want continental countries to have only a minimal share in governing our country?

Mr. Davis: I understand only too well what my hon. Friend is saying. Ironically, there is not too much difference between what he had to say and the comments on the opinion poll made earlier by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). British people want the nation state to be respected. They want proper co-operation in Europe, trading opportunities in Europe, peace and stability in Europe and a decentralised Europe. We shall support all those things.

Madam Speaker: Mr. MacKay—I am sorry, Mr. Mackinlay.

Mr. Mackinlay: What opportunities are there for the Governments of countries applying for membership of the European Union to contribute to the intergovernmental conference—especially the Visegrad countries, of which Poland is the largest? Will there be an opportunity for them to make a meaningful contribution to deliberations? In that regard, will the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister be meeting the new President of Poland soon?

Mr. Davis: I was surprised to see where the hon. Gentleman was sitting, given how he was addressed.

Mr. Skinner: We are a broad church here.

Mr. Davis: It is a very broad church if it extends as far as the Conservative Whips Office.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman's quite serious question, which I shall treat seriously, the Government have certainly been in communication with all the countries to which he referred—certainly Visegrad 4, Visegrad 6 and the Baltic countries. We shall continue to be in communication with them about their proposals and ideas. Their representatives meet regularly; they have attended meetings of the European Foreign Affairs Council on a number of occasions. We shall certainly be continuing that process and ensuring that their fears and concerns are reflected. Britain will take a very forward role in doing so. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment about a meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall have to look into that and let him know.

Mr. Mans: When my hon. Friend attends the IGC and discusses the prospects of future members of the European Union in eastern Europe, will he ensure that our colleagues in Europe appreciate that the security of those future members should be conducted through NATO and not through any future security structure in the EU?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend will be only too pleased to know that that point has already been made very forcibly by myself in the reflection group and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the Western European Union. Our stance on it is very


clear and was laid out in a memorandum written by my right hon. and learned Friend in March. We have stuck forcibly to that point throughout. Article 5 responsibilities—defence responsibilities—must be under NATO and not anything else.

BBC World Service

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates have been made of the effects on the operating budget of the BBC World Service of the combined effect of the recent reduction in its capital programme and the proposed introduction of private finance initiative funding. [6851]

Mr. Hanley: The effect of the PFI funding on the World Service budget will be clearer once the World Service completes its discussions with the private sector.

Mr. Dowd: Does the Minister regret the damage that the Government's arbitrary decision to cut both the operating budget and the capital budget of the World Service—in outright defiance of the triennium agreement—has done to its ability to plan for the future? Does he not realise that that will produce total cuts, in real terms, across the World Service's budgets of some £20 million by 1997–98? Does that not conclusively demonstrate that the Government's word is not to be trusted even when they are dealing with an institution such as the BBC World Service, which provides value to the people of Britain that far exceeds its operating costs?

Mr. Hanley: I fully recognise the great value and high quality of the World Service and the important role that it plays in overseas representation. It is not realistic, however, to examine the World Service budget in isolation from the Foreign Office budget as a whole, as the chairman of the BBC has acknowledged.
We have done everything possible to keep reductions in the World Service to the minimum. If one takes both capital and revenue reductions, the average is 4.75 per cent for the World Service while it is 7.0 per cent. for the Foreign Office as a whole. If one takes expenditure for 1996–97, the current expenditure reduction for the World Service is 0 per cent., whereas for the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office it is 4 per cent. If one takes capital expenditure into account as well, as we said, the PFI will be playing its part.
The Government have favoured the World Service above every other part of the Foreign Office in the current expenditure round.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister bear it in mind that recently the BBC seemed sensibly to opt out of paying the huge sums of money required for prestige sporting events? We shall now, for example, be able to watch formula 1 motor racing on ITV—which allegedly paid £70 million over five years for that right—rather than on the BBC. Does not all that add up to the fact that the BBC should have ample savings with which to make up the shortfall for the World Service?

Mr. Hanley: I cannot go along with the argument that my right hon. Friend uses inasmuch as I believe that the World Service, along with the BBC as a whole, has become much more efficient than it was in the past. The World Service has also produced television services the

world over at no cost to the British taxpayer, which is a great triumph, and the quality of those programmes is improving daily.
I believe in the investment that we have made in the World Service. It has a capital provision of more than £62 million for the next three years, and expenditure on the Oman relay station will cost £20 million during that period. That is a substantial capital investment. With further efficiency savings, I believe that the World Service will continue to serve us extremely well. On top of that, real terms funding has been increased by 50 per cent. since 1979.

Mr. Shore: The Minister must be aware that the BBC itself does not finance the World Service; it is financed by subventions from the Foreign Office, and always has been. Will the Minister therefore look more carefully now at the case for sustaining the previously budgeted expenditure, not only for this year but for 1997–98? There is a real danger not only that the capital budget will be cut—that will happen anyway and the World Service may or may not be able to make up for it through the PFI—but that the operating budget will be cut. Those of us who heard earlier this year of the end of our 50-year-old radio service to France, which has operated since General de Gaulle first came to Britain in 1940, can only look to the future with great anxiety and wait to see which other services are in danger.

Mr. Hanley: I recognise that some hon. Members have longer memories than others, and can therefore remember the time when the French language service was extremely important. However, the World Service's decision to cut that service has nothing to do with the recent budgetary measures. The decision was taken by the BBC purely on its own merits, and was announced last September. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to fund nostalgia, that is up to him, but the World Service is efficient and effective. I recognise the £10 million funding gap—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members take some interest in the subject, they might like to listen to the answer. I am talking about the funding gap in 1997–98. The prediction of that gap is based on several assumptions that remain to be verified. I realise that it will be a difficult year, but I am confident that much can be done to absorb the cuts, especially through further efficiencies.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the BBC World Service acts as a most effective, and cost-effective, ambassador in every home and institution in which it is listened to? Bearing that fact in mind, will he carefully re-examine the figures, especially those for 1997, to ensure that the World Service is not jeopardised for the sake of the price of a mile of motorway?

Mr. Hanley: I can tell my hon. Friend, and I know that he will agree, that the Government have a strong record of support for the World Service. As I said earlier, real terms funding is up by 50 per cent. since 1979. World Service output and audiences now stand at record levels—the audience is more than twice the size of the nearest competitor. The World Service has benefited from an investment of £166 million since 1991, which has greatly improved audibility and efficiency. For example, a new £29 million relay station is nearing completion in Thailand. The World Service is now broadcast in 42 languages, including the 24-hour English output, and


it is rebroadcast by more than 900 local radio stations. That is a record of success. [Interruption.] No wonder the Opposition are angry about it.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the World Service is such a success, why are the Government not backing that success? The Minister has just mentioned the 42 languages. Does he not know that this month the World Service is carrying out a review to decide which of those languages it will have to drop in 1997? Which language does the Minister think that the BBC World Service could drop without damaging British influence? If he cannot answer that question, does that not underline how short-sighted it is to cut the funding of one of the great assets of Britain, which should be one of the best investments that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could make in foreign relations?

Mr. Hanley: I said earlier, and I shall repeat it, that the World Service has done better out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office public expenditure survey than any other branch. Indeed, the rest of the Foreign Office has had to make sacrifices because of the World Service. Does the hon. Gentleman want to say how much he would spend on the Foreign Office budget and how much extra on the World Service? What allocation would he make for the Foreign Office budget under his Government, if he ever had the chance to form one? I should be interested if he would put the numbers on the line, because we want to know how much extra he would spend.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as has already been made clear, it is a matter of major concern on both sides of the House that the operating budget of the BBC World Service for the next triennium is under serious threat? He has waxed eloquent about the achievements of the BBC World Service. As he has the Foreign Office responsibility for that service, will he undertake to protect it, rather than cutting an operation that delivers more for Britain at less cost than almost anything else?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend's interest in, and support for, the World Service is well known. I am grateful for the discussions that he had with me on the subject before Christmas. As I said, we have protected the World Service from the rigours of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for the coming year. We have favoured it, and to a large extent ring-fenced it, in comparison with expenditure on the British Council, on the diplomatic wing and even on the Overseas Development Administration. In other words, the World Service has done better than any other part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in funding. That is a recognition of the importance that the World Service holds for the United Kingdom and of the way in which the House regards it.

Intergovernmental Conference

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish a White Paper outlining Her Majesty's Government's priorities for the intergovernmental conference of the European Union. [6852]

Mr. David Davis: The Government have given a clear idea of their approach to the IGC in debates in the House, in Committee appearances and in responses to Committee reports. None the less, we are carefully considering the possibility of a White Paper.

Ms Eagle: Why is the Minister being so coy about a White Paper? The IGC is rapidly approaching, and we should like to know the Government's latest thinking on the issue. Is the Minister worried that, if he dares to publish a White Paper, it will tear his party apart?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Lady should pay attention to the facts. We have had two debates in the House and two debates in the other place, and we have made seven appearances before Select Committees, four responses to Select Committee reports and a large number of other responses to make clear our policy. It is clear, however, that our policy will not include giving up our vetoes on industrial policy, social policy, regional policy and environmental policy. It will not involve our joining the social chapter, nor will it involve this country giving up any other opt-outs. In other words, the policy will not involve the sell-out that the Labour party offers.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has reminded the House that the Labour party has published its detailed policy for the IGC. The Tory Euro-sceptics have published their policy on the IGC, and we understand that the Tory left is to do the same. Is not the only reason why the Government will not tell us whether they will publish a White Paper that they cannot yet work out how to get the separate wings of the Tory party to agree to the same policy? Is it not time that they admitted that a party so divided at home cannot speak with unity for Britain abroad? Should they not stop clinging to office?

Mr. Davis: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his brass neck. He should have looked behind him during the debate that we had before Christmas, when he did not have a single supporter on his own Back Benches. I should ask him about his policy on monetary union. Whom does he support—the leader of the Labour party or the deputy leader, as they have different policies? In every single area of policy, Labour Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members have different views.

Sir Jim Lester: May I commend my hon. Friend for the way in which the Foreign Office has responded to the painstaking work done on the IGC by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee? I suspect that not every hon. Member knows the details of the work that the Committee has undertaken, the capitals that we have visited, and continue to visit, and the reports that we have published. I commend all who are asking questions to go to the Vote Office on their way out and pick up those reports, as they might do rather better than questioning my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on two counts—first on his personal honour, which was well deserved, and secondly on the commendable work that the Select Committee has undertaken. The Select Committees of this House have done a tremendous job in terms of reviewing the IGC and providing input on the subject.

Mr. Janner: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davis: I was not looking at the hon. and learned Gentleman when I said that. All of the Select Committees deserve congratulations, the Foreign Affairs Committee—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) is a member—in particular.

EU Decision Making

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the need to reform the European Union's decision-making procedures. [6855]

Mr. David Davis: The decision-making procedures of the European Union have been the subject of discussions in the study group preparing the intergovernmental conference. The Madrid European Council agreed that this should start on 29 March in Turin.

Ms Anderson: What advice has the Minister received about the decision-making procedures within the EU from the Secretary of State for Defence? Does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend that those who advocate a federal Europe should follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) and leave the Conservative party?

Mr. Davis: I intend to give a serious answer to a not very serious question. The decision-making procedures in the EU are not beyond repair or criticism. One of the items raised in the IGC reflection group, which has looked into this matter in some detail, is the concern that a great deal of blame for the lack of popularity of the EU could be attributed to the complexity of its decision-making procedures.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that reform of decision making at European level raises legitimate concerns not only in the Tory party but in all parties in the House and throughout the country, and given that the Government are so immobilised on the matter that they cannot even publish a White Paper to tell us what they think, would it not make more sense for the Tory party and the Government as well as for the House and the country for the Government to commit themselves, as we have, to a referendum if the outcome of the IGC carries constitutional implications that go beyond the ambit of any one party or Parliament?

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the IGC will not be allowed to carry major constitutional implications, but if it did, he would reconsider the matter.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend use the IGC to reinforce our ideas on the introduction of regulations and directives—that they should be deregulatory, that subsidiarity should be defined and, above all, that the European Union should use a light touch and publish directives and regulations only when they are really necessary?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend summarises well some of the arguments that we have been successful in promoting in the EU in the past few years—in particular, the arguments about subsidiarity and deregulation. As I said, some 61 regulations were removed last year. That effort is continuing. At the Madrid Council, the Commission was required to produce a report with an action plan to carry on removing legislation that is unnecessary and burdensome on industry and to improve the competitiveness of the EU.

Tibet

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Chinese Government concerning repression in Tibet. [6856]

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue of human rights abuses in Tibet during his discussions with the Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, in Peking yesterday.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the Minister for that answer. Human rights abuses in Tibet continue, and we have seen human rights abuses by the Chinese come to the forefront again this week. Will the Minister ensure that, in representations to the Chinese Government, Tibet is high on the agenda? As each day goes by, repression in Tibet continues without the world taking any notice.

Mr. Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are deeply concerned about reports of abuses of human rights in Tibet and further afield, including the destruction of religious buildings, the immigration of the Han Chinese, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. We raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities regularly both nationally and as part of the European Union.
We have a great responsibility for the people of Hong Kong. We must make sure that our relationship with China is as good as possible for the sake of the people of Hong Kong to ensure that there is continuity and the highest degree of autonomy come 1997. However, that has never stopped us raising issues of human rights abuses in China. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) speaking this morning on the radio in exactly the right measured tones about the matter.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend observed newspaper reports on China's apparent neglect, or worse, of the Dalai Lama's chosen successor? Has he been able to make representations to the Government of China in defence of that most important deity?

Mr. Hanley: I certainly have seen reports of that. We regret that the Chinese Government and the Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including the Dalai Lama, have been unable to reach agreement on the selection of the new Panchen Lama. It is a matter of great concern.

Mr. Fatchett: On the issue of human rights in Tibet and China, the Minister will be aware of the profound distress caused by the harrowing scenes in last night's Channel 4 documentary on Chinese orphanages. Can the Minister tell the House whether, during his meetings in Beijing, the Foreign Secretary obtained any assurance from the Chinese Government that the reports would be fully investigated and acted upon? Will the Minister make it clear that such treatment of children is unacceptable? Does he agree that, if China is to take its proper place in world affairs, it must improve its human rights record and give much higher priority to human rights?

Mr. Hanley: There were certainly very serious allegations of ill treatment of abandoned children in China in the "Human Rights Watch" report and the programme must have been profoundly disturbing to anyone who watched it, as I did, last night. My right hon. and learned


Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue forcibly with the Chinese yesterday and urged them to realise that, if they have changed the system as they claim, the best way to set people's minds at ease would be to ensure that the relevant authorities can investigate the charges. They should, therefore, open up the orphanages for public inspection, as they apparently did in Shanghai. There is still more to investigate before the rest of the world can feel that human rights abuses are coming to an end in China. It is an extremely important matter and the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend comes at the right time to express the feelings of many in this House.

Japan

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Japan. [6858]

Mr. Hanley: UK relations with Japan are excellent. We are developing close co-operation on international issues, investment, trade, science and technology and in many other areas.

Mr. Viggers: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the relationship with Japan is now so close that the UK is Japan's natural link with mainland Europe and that Japan's economic strength and political maturity make it a suitable candidate for permanent membership of the Security Council? For the same reasons, would it not be appropriate for us to discuss military co-operation with Japan, with a view to co-operating in humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping in due course?

Mr. Hanley: The Government are keen to encourage good co-operation between the UK and Japan in a range

of areas, including defence. It is in the interests of this country and the international community that key members of the Japanese defence forces should have the opportunity to learn from the United Kingdom's peacekeeping experience. We should encourage Japan to share the international burden of peacekeeping, both financially and with trained personnel, and I therefore agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would not relations with Japan improve immensely if, for example, the Japanese stopped slaughtering minke whales in the Antarctic—something that is against all international agreements?

Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom believes that the decision of the Institute of Cetacean Research to sue Mr. Votier was a private matter for the Japanese courts. We have certainly made clear to Japan on numerous occasions our objections to so-called scientific whaling. The hon. Gentleman may well know that I support his campaign to "Save the Whale". Indeed, someone once said that I was the only human being to receive a dividend from "Save the Whale".

BILL PRESENTED

NURSERY EDUCATION AND GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Mrs. Secretary Shephard, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Secretary Hague, Mr. Robin Squire and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, presented a Bill to provide for the making of grants in respect of nursery education and to permit borrowing by grant-maintained schools: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Delegated Legislation

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FIRE SERVICES

That the North Wales Fire Services (Combination Scheme) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3218) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the South Wales Fire Services (Combination Scheme) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3230) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Regional Government

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish elected Parliaments in each of the regions of England; to define the powers and authority of these bodies; and for related purposes.
The passage of this Bill will demonstrate that the House is determined to reverse the creeping centralisation of power that has turned Britain into the most centralised state in Europe—a country in which decision-taking authority is concentrated in the hands of a small group of Ministers and where no attempt is made to provide a balance to centralised power by harnessing the ideas, initiative and enthusiasm of people throughout the regions.
From the outset, I want to make it clear that the establishment of regional government as proposed in the Bill will not result in the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy. Far from it; the objective of the Bill is to achieve a dramatic reduction in the powers and cost of central Government. The process of decision taking by the centre will be replaced by one of decision taking by the regions.
For example, the strong and effective tier of regional government proposed in the Bill will eliminate the need for the Department of the Environment in its present form. Its work will be almost entirely superseded. The powers allocated to regional government are such that the roles of the Departments of Transport, Trade and Industry, and Employment and Education will also be significantly diminished. While the establishment of regional parliaments will bring under democratic authority tiers of government that in practice already exist at regional level, major changes in the departmental structure of central Government will also be required.
The Bill will have three far-reaching effects. First, it will enshrine in our system of government the principle of subsidiarity, enabling decisions to be made at the lowest practical level and as close as possible to the people whom they affect. That is a principle much praised by Ministers when they speak of Britain's place in Europe, but it is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" in our domestic affairs; for there the principle is honoured only by its absence. It is a nonsense and a disgrace that people in regions such as mine, the north-west—which has a population of 7 million and is larger than four nation states in the European Union—have so little influence on decisions that affect them and them alone.
Secondly, the Bill provides the seedcorn for the growth of regional centres of economic influence, a step of the utmost importance if all parts of the nation are to benefit fully from our membership of the European Union and the introduction of a single currency. For 150 years, the tendency of economic influence to gravitate towards the centre has been demonstrated by the decline of our provincial cities in relation to London and financial centres elsewhere. Decisions affecting the livelihoods of entire communities are too often made by people with no knowledge of or sympathy with those localities. The tendency towards centralisation of power is likely to be accelerated by the adoption of a single currency, and it is therefore important that we take steps now to strengthen the influence of our regions on economic decision making.
Thirdly, the Bill provides a crucial step in the long-overdue modernisation of our stagnating democracy and outdated institutions, whose failure is one reason why the country has been in relative decline for so long. If we look across Europe, we see nation states all of which have decentralised their decision making. There are 20 regional governments in Italy, 16 Länder in Germany, 17 autonomous communities in Spain and 22 regional governments in France, all created since the end of the last war. In their respective localities, they command great public support. Far from dividing their countries or threatening their unions, they provide bonds of democratic legitimacy and regional pride that draw their nations together.
The regional parliaments that the Bill will establish in England will have general authority to act in any field not specifically designated for central or local government. They will play a major role in the distribution of capital and revenue funding to local government and the powerful quangos that exist at present—development corporations, English Partnerships and the like. They will have strategic planning powers, authority to encourage economic development and responsibilities for training, further education, transport planning and infrastructure development.
Not all those areas of authority will be assumed immediately by regional parliaments. In Spain the regional communities are being encouraged to develop at their own pace, and the Bill provides for regional governments in this country to take powers from central Government at a time of their choosing. The Bill recognises that the development of the competence and authority of the new institutions will be a gradual process, and that people must be given time and freedom to work out what they consider to be the most appropriate hierarchy of democratic administration. The result is bound to vary from region to region.
Because the Bill provides for the establishment of a new constitutional settlement and a genuine sharing of authority between central and regional government, the regional parliaments will have recourse to the courts if central Government seek to usurp their authority to determine policy on matters in regard to which autonomy rightly rests with them. The Bill provides for the appointment of commissions to facilitate the creation of the new bodies, able to determine the boundary of each region and the locations of the regional seats of government. Uniformity of size is not an objective. Perhaps the new bodies will choose to follow the boundaries of the Government's existing eight administrative areas; perhaps not. They are certainly already large by European standards.
It is also important to proceed by consent. Diversity is perfectly acceptable if it encourages a strong identification between regional parliaments and the people whom they represent. For example, the regional government of Saarland in Germany deals with a population of just 1 million. Such special arrangements might be appropriate in areas like Cornwall. We could even set up a mini-state in Macclesfield if that would please the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Charged as they are with emotions of local pride, those will not be easy tasks. But they have been undertaken in many countries before ours and I have no reason to

suppose that our solutions will be any less successful. For the time being, I shall avoid speculating about the appropriate seat of regional government in the north-west.
The commissions are also charged with the task of making arrangements for the election of members of the regional parliaments. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the specified method of election in this Bill is required to ensure that voting intentions are reflected on a broadly proportional basis. From the beginning, membership of the regional parliaments will accurately reflect the electorate, which this House has long failed to do.
Importantly, the Bill provides for the establishment of an interregional finance commission and formal consultative procedures between the regional parliaments, the Treasury and this House. Although the parliaments will have some tax-raising powers, a large element of their funding will be provided by the Exchequer, and the distribution of funds between regions must be equitable.
In constitutional terms, it would not be too extreme to describe the Bill's effect as revolutionary, as it will fundamentally alter the role of central Government. Although it may be regarded as radical in Britain, however, it would he considered as no more than pragmatic—even tame—by our European partners. That reflects the fact that our Government institutions are trapped in the past and stifle new ideas.
The European Union of which we are part is a Europe of the regions. It is time that we, too, looked to our regions and harnessed the initiatives of their people to find new solutions to the problems that we face. It is time that we brought our constitution and democracy up to date, and placed the principles of decentralisation and subsidiarity at the core of our system of government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I oppose the Bill because it is the most appalling piece of rubbish that has been put before the House for many years.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) has not been here for two minutes and he wants to saddle our constituents with yet another level of government and of taxation. I do not know about his area, but my constituents would be saddled with a parish council, a district council, a county council, a regional council, this Westminster Parliament, which is the fount of authority, and also with the European Parliament, the Commission and all the rest. The Liberal Democrats would land us with six levels of government, all with tax-raising powers.
The practical questions that should have been answered by the proposal were not even put forward. It is Liberal party policy to have a regional council for Cornwall, but we have not heard what county councillors—perhaps Liberal ones—from Cornwall say about that. Who would be responsible there? Where would the regional council be sited in my area? Perhaps it would be in Reading, tucked around the other side of London.
Does the hon. Gentleman have such a lack of faith in his Liberal colleagues on Kent county council that he proposes a regional council, which would take legal action against his Liberal colleagues on Kent county council? I would have a little sympathy for that idea, because their management of Kent county council is so incompetent that


they should be taken to court. The solution to our ills is for people to elect decent councils, not be saddled with yet another level of government as the hon. Gentleman proposes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an interregional finance commission, but did not make it clear what that would do, other than contain yet more politicians who would squander public money. I have never heard such absurd nonsense as this proposal to saddle my constituents with more taxation, more politicians and more restrictions. I hope that the House will chuck out this ridiculous Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 61.

Division No. 20]
[3.45 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Mackinlay, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maddock, Diana


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A
Wareing, Robert N


Gordon, Mildred
Wigley, Dafydd


Harvey, Nick



Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Nigel Jones.





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Mills, lain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Moate, Sir Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Batiste, Spencer
Riddick, Graham


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Budgen, Nicholas
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Carrington, Matthew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Spink, Dr Robert


Day, Stephen
Stephen, Michael


Dover, Den
Stewart, Allan


Dunn, Bob
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Thomason, Roy


Gallie, Phil
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hargreaves, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Harris, David
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jessel, Toby
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sir Cranley Onslow and


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Mr. Jacques Arnold.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short but significant. Its purpose is to ensure that the forces of law and order have all the available tools and assistance at their disposal in seeking to combat the threat that is posed by organised crime. Its effect will be to enable the Security Service to bring all its skills and experience to bear in support of the law enforcement agencies when they take on criminal gangs, drug traffickers, money launderers, racketeers and others involved in organised crime.
I shall begin by explaining a little of the background to the Bill, and specifically the way in which it fits into the Government's broader strategy for fighting serious and organised crime.
Organised crime and those who perpetrate it are a menace to society. We are confronted with sophisticated criminals who are well organised, well resourced and well equipped, who have no compunction about using violence to achieve their ends, and who have no concern for those whose lives they ruin, especially by addiction to the drugs they peddle. The consequences of their activities are misery and human tragedy on a huge scale.
In due course, we shall examine, as we should, the civil rights implications of the provisions of the Bill. However, we would do well to remember that the greatest infringement of human rights in our society comes from the bullets, the knives and the drugs that are the stock in trade of the criminals against whom the Bill is aimed. A great deal is already being done by law enforcement agencies to tackle that type of crime, but there can be no room for complacency.
The Home Affairs Select Committee published its third report of the 1994–95 session, on organised crime, in July 1995. It acknowledged that organised crime was a cause for concern. Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the Committee he chairs for producing a very helpful and constructive report. The Government published their reply to that report yesterday. We agree with a great deal of what is contained in it.
We especially agree with the fifth recommendation of the Select Committee, which states:
While we recognise that intelligence gathering has a vital role to play in the fight against organised crime we do not conclude that the present situation yet calls for substantial inroads to be made into ordinary citizens' freedom from intrusion by the State".
As I shall demonstrate to the House, the Bill does fully protect the freedoms of ordinary citizens. However, it is the first part of the recommendation that I think is especially pertinent—the recognition that intelligence gathering is vital in the fight against organised crime. The Bill seeks to make that activity more effective.
It is important that we recognise that the nature of serious crime is changing. Of course, individuals may carry out a hold-up or bank robbery in isolation. But

today's serious criminal is equally likely to be a member of, or more loosely affiliated to, a group of others involved in a continuing series of criminal activities. The law enforcement agencies can no longer think in terms solely of solving individual crimes. If particular members of the group are caught and convicted, the group may well carry on with its criminal activities. These activities can continue over months, or even years, and membership of the gang may well be amorphous.
These are often people who, through ill-gotten gains, have purchased apparently respectable businesses and other cover for their activities. When faced with such criminals, who share many of the characteristics of terrorist groups, good intelligence operations are clearly vital. We wholeheartedly endorse this recommendation of the Select Committee.
That is why we think it necessary to take a number of steps to enhance the capability of our law enforcement agencies to gather and use intelligence when fighting organised crime. Many of these were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech at Blackpool on 13 October. The package of measures that we are putting in place includes strengthening the central contribution of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; developing the regional crime squads to provide a national police response to tackle organised crime; and engaging the Security Service to support the fight against serious crime.
Since its creation in 1992, the National Criminal Intelligence Service has made an impressive contribution to the fight against serious crime. It has proved to be the focal point for the gathering of intelligence on organised crime and a useful liaison point for overseas law enforcement agencies. But we agree with the Select Committee that the NCIS could be made more effective, and that its role can be developed.
In doing so, we need to define the status of the NCIS more clearly. At present, it is a part of the Home Office, although, clearly, its day-to-day management is a matter for the director-general rather than Ministers. We intend to give it a clearer and separate identity, with the freedom to manage its own affairs and to make further improvements to its effectiveness.
We also intend to create a national crime squad. We need to develop the existing regional crime squads to ensure that there is an effective national tier to the operational policing response. Again, it is important to recognise the changing nature of serious crime. Much more serious crime is now national and international. We must do more than just respond; we must get ahead of it.
The necessary building blocks are already in place. Regional crime squads have in recent years played an important and effective role in combating high-level criminality that crosses various local boundaries. But there are limitations. The regional crime squads are based on voluntary collaborative arrangements. Their national co-ordinator has no authority to direct the deployment of their resources. These arrangements are no longer adequate to meet the challenges we face. They must be revised, reinforced and brought up to date.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it quite clear that the Government have still not resolved what the national crime squad is going to be—whether, for instance, it will


operate throughout the United Kingdom or just in England and Wales—what its relationship to the NCIS will be, and therefore what the relationship with the Security Service will be. Does he appreciate how difficult it is to work out how the Security Service will relate to the police, when it is not known what the national structure will be?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion follows from his earlier points. I was about to come to those very matters.
As the House will appreciate, the two measures which I have just discussed—putting the NCIS on a proper footing, and the creation of a national crime squad—have far-reaching implications. We are working through these implications with the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose views on all this I regard as of great importance, and other interested bodies, to ensure that the structures we create are those that will work effectively and which will command widespread support. Some of these changes are likely to need legislation. We hope to be in a position to introduce such legislation in the next Session.
There is, however, one element of our response that is discrete, which can be implemented in advance of the rest of the package; that is the basis of the Bill: to enable the Security Service to act in support of the law enforcement agencies against serious crime.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Is not the Secretary of State putting the cart before the horse? There is a real fear that the relationship of the Security Service to the police will be uncertain. It is all very well to talk about developing structures, but, as Sir Paul Condon said in his Police Foundation lecture last year:
I will argue that we have a foundation on which we can build. However, in some places the foundation is too weak to sustain additional pressure, and change is necessary.
Britain's senior policeman is saying that the structures and the foundation that exist may not be good enough to take the pressures that might result from the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I have just spelt out that we accept that change is necessary, and that we are currently in the process of working through that change's implications with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, but that is no reason why we should wait longer than is necessary to avail ourselves of the contribution that the Security Service can make in the fight against serious organised crime. That is the implication of the questions of both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Gentleman. Should we wait another year before availing ourselves of the contribution of the Security Service, when there is no need to do so?
The Security Service was founded some 87 years ago. In 1909, it consisted of one person, Captain Vernon Kell, formerly of the South Staffordshire Regiment. Today, the service has some 2,000 staff. The service's history has been characterised by its ability to deploy its skills and techniques to respond to changing threats and to the changing demands on it.
As the brochure on the Security Service that I published in 1993 makes clear, in its early years the service concentrated on the threat posed by German spies. In the 1920s and 1930s, the concentration was on the perceived

Bolshevik threat. In the years leading up to, and during, the second world war, attention was concentrated on the threat from fascism.
In the cold war years after the second world war, the Security Service once more turned its attention to the communist threat. In the 1970s and since, a great deal of its attention has been given to countering the threat posed by terrorism emanating from certain groups and countries in the middle east. More recently, as the House will know, the service has played a prominent role in countering Irish terrorism, and, since 1992, it has had the lead role in that regard on the mainland. Its history has therefore been one of flexible response to changing threats and changing priorities. Over the years, our country has been extremely well served by the service.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is not the background to all this the fact that the Security Service is running out of threats, and that a new one is having to be invented to save large public spending cuts that might otherwise have to be introduced to these bloated organisations?

Mr. Howard: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather idyllic view of the world in which we live. There are, alas, still far too many threats, but if it proves to be the case that some spare resources are available in the Security Service, we should avail ourselves of its particular skills and expertise in the fight against organised crime, which is one of the greatest threats we face.

Mr. David Winnick: I for one would not underestimate MI5's traditional role in combating the curse of international terrorism, but if MI5 is to have extended powers under the Bill to deal with serious crime, is that not all the more reason to ensure that accountability exists?
Is the Home Secretary aware that the limited parliamentary accountability—which now consists of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is not answerable directly to Parliament or to the Prime Minister, does not even meet in parliamentary buildings, and in the servicing of which the House of Commons Clerks are not involved—is inadequate? Therefore, if such extended powers are to be introduced, there should be proper accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with accountability shortly, but hon. Members will not be astonished to hear that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view, and that I do not accept that the arrangements for accountability are inadequate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given that the Bill refers to the United Kingdom and to the British islands, what role will be played in the scheme of things by the Scottish Office and by Scottish police forces? Has consultation taken place with the Scottish Office and with senior police officers throughout Scotland?

Mr. Howard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is taking place with the authorities in Scotland. I have just been talking about our intention to create a national crime squad, but as the hon. Gentleman will know, there is already a Scottish crime squad. In some respects, the putting in place of the arrangements necessary to make the new role for the Security Service


as effective as we would like it to be will perhaps be somewhat easier in Scotland than in the rest of the kingdom.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am a little concerned about my right hon. and learned Friend's reference to flexible response. He correctly identified the Security Service as starting out in 1909, but is it not a fact that the role of the Security Service remained unchanged and limited to direct threats to the realm involving counterespionage, counter-sabotage and counter-subversion, until November 1989? That was when the first substantial change took place, authorised by Parliament, in order to extend the powers to terrorism. Today we are dealing with perhaps an even greater extension of Security Service powers into the criminal justice system.

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend says, it is true that the first legislative change was incorporated in the Security Service Act 1989, but as I have sought to explain and identify, there were changes in earlier years. Those changes were considerable, and marked a different attitude on the part of the service to the various threats that it had to counter.
Although I do not disguise from my hon. Friend or the House the fact that the proposals included in the Bill mark a further change, I contend that they are part of a tradition of change and flexible response which has been a hallmark of the service. Although the Bill marks a new departure for the service and takes it into a new area of work, such changes in direction are by no means unprecedented.

Mr. David Ashby: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can help me with something which has been worrying and puzzling me. He will know that, for a long time, I have advocated a national police force and fought against the proliferation of police forces. For example, I have maintained that we have Customs and Excise as a major police force as well as various local police forces. We now have a criminal intelligence section and a further proliferation with the transport police, the atomic police and the ports police.
There are so many police forces that we do not know where we are going or where we are coming from. We are now to have another police force, rather like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will be more related to Customs and Excise than anything else because it will be drug-related.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about organised crime, upon which, as he will know, the Select Committee has been reporting. He will know also that at the moment there is a great threat from eastern Europe. How will all that come together? Is it not time we started to talk about a national police force with a national role, with various subsidiaries, of which the Security Service would be one?

Mr. Howard: I am sorry to say that I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis. The Bill does not propose another police force. The Security Service will not become a police force. Of course, we need a national component in our policing service, and we have that component. However, I do not believe that it would be sensible to remove the local accountability of the police service in this country, which is, in many ways, one of its great strengths. I do not accept what my hon. Friend said

about the British Transport police and other separate police forces. They have particular and specific roles, and I believe that it makes sense to have arrangements for them.
I believe that the time has come to bring the skills and experience of the Security Service to bear in the war against those who, if they do not themselves necessarily pose a threat to national security, have the capability to do serious damage to the fabric of society and to destroy people's lives.
I come now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 adds to the functions of the Security Service. As the law currently stands, in the form of the Security Service Act 1989, the remit of the Security Service is confined to combating threats to national security and threats from abroad to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The Bill will add a third function, which is to act in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime.
Those words mirror the words in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which gives a role in fighting serious crime to both the Secret Intelligence Service—SIS—and Government communications headquarters—GCHQ—and emphasise the fact that the role of the service will be a supporting one. The law enforcement agencies will retain the primary duty for tackling crime, and will be responsible for tasking the Security Service in its serious crime work.

Mr. Beith: I am glad that the Home Secretary has made that point, but the Bill does not say that. It makes no provision to ensure that work is undertaken in that area only if the police task the Security Service to do so. Why has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen fit to include that in the Bill?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill. As I pointed out, the Bill contains the words "in support". I contend that the meaning that I have spelt out relating to the way in which we envisage the Security Service working is, in fact, the meaning of the words contained in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view, that can be explored in Committee. If he wants to propose different language, that can be explored in Committee.
However, I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman—and this is an extremely important point—that it would be thoroughly undesirable to insert language in the Bill that would prove an invitation to legal challenge, and would end in guilty men walking free from the courts through legal technicalities. That is something to be avoided. We believe that the language in the Bill gives the meaning we want, while minimising the dangers that I have identified.

Mr. Jack Straw: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about not so constraining the wording of the Bill that that wording then negates its original purpose. I want to press him on the use of the phrase "serious crime". Up to now, he has rightly justified the extension of the powers of the Security Service by reference to the dangers of organised crime. However, the Bill refers to "serious crime". Will he explain why the draftsman chose to use the phrase "serious crime", but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his justification, has referred to "organised crime"?

Mr. Howard: The reason is much the same as the one I gave in response to the right hon. Member for


Berwick-upon-Tweed. The view has been taken that that wording is likely to minimise the prospect of legal challenge, which would lead to the unfortunate consequences that I have identified. If the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends have alternative versions, they can be considered in Committee.

Dr. Godman: I am a little concerned about the provision in clause 2—

Mr. Howard: I have not finished clause 1 yet.

Dr. Godman: I will wait.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his patience.
The principle of the Security Service working only in support of the law enforcement agencies in serious crime matters is endorsed by all the parties involved. It is reinforced by the second half of clause 1, which imposes an additional duty on the Director-General of the Security Service. The Bill imposes a duty on the director-general to ensure that there are arrangements in place for co-ordinating the Security Service's work against serious crime with the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies.
The co-ordination arrangements will be governed by the agreed principles to which I have already referred—police primacy and tasking. This is an especially important facet of the measure, and it was of considerable concern and interest to the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose report on Security Service work against organised crime was published just before Christmas. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his Committee for their constructive report, which recognised that the Security Service could bring a distinctive package of skills to the fight against organised crime.
Clearly, if the Security Service is to be effective in its work in support of the law enforcement agencies, it is vital that this work is effectively co-ordinated with the work of those agencies. There is no question of the Security Service being self-tasking or working on its own in isolation without the knowledge of the law enforcement agencies. The Security Service will work closely with those agencies, and, as the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended, will be tasked by them.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (: We are now into the detail of the Bill. I, like many of my hon. Friends, have been waiting patiently to intervene since the Home Secretary said in the first part of his speech that he was going to come to an important and major section on accountability. Will he assure us that he will return to it? When he turned to the Bill's details, I became worried that he had skipped that part.

Mr. Howard: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks.
The way in which the co-ordination will usually operate is that the Security Service will be tasked in particular areas or operations by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will in turn liaise closely with local police forces and regional crime squads. It may be that the Security Service will be invited to look at a particular type

of crime, group or area that is suffering from organised crime. In any event, it would clearly be sensible for its resources to be deployed where they can have the greatest effect.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On accountability, and bearing in mind the problems when the customs have worked with police forces and regional crime squads in the past, would not part of the solution to the problem be for officers from the security services who were seconded to a particular case or investigation to carry the powers of a constable? In that case, they would have the power to arrest, to bear arms and all the other powers that a constable has—as well as being accountable.

Mr. Howard: That would clearly be one answer, but I do not think that it would be the best answer, because the Security Service is not a police force, and those who work for it are not police officers. Its accountability arrangements—I come to the point that I assured the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I would indeed come to—are different from those of the police. Apart from the fact, to which I have already referred, that the Security Service will not operate independently but only in support of and at the request of law enforcement agencies, there are additionally, as the House will know, already a considerable number of safeguards in place to ensure that the Security Service does not abuse its powers.
The Director-General of the Security Service is personally accountable to me for all the service's activities. There is in place a Security Service commissioner, supported by a tribunal, to carry out independent oversight of the service's activities and to provide an avenue of complaint, and if required, redress for those who feel that they have been subjected to unfair treatment by the service. All Security Service warrants, about which I shall say more in a moment, will continue to require the signature of a Secretary of State, and will continue to be subject to scrutiny by the commissioner.
I should again stress that the Security Service is not to be given any new powers. It has not been given the power of arrest or any of the other rights that are traditionally enjoyed by the police. It is merely being given the ability to use its existing powers in a new field.

Mr. Allason: How many complaints have been considered by the Security Service tribunal?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that I can give my hon. Friend that figure off the top of my head, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with it in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Allason: Is it not a fact that that figure—even a ballpark figure could be 25, 50, 100 or 1,000—is secret? Is not one of the problems about accountability the fact that, although there may well be a structure in place, we are not allowed to know—since November 1989 precisely—how many investigations, if any, have been conducted? All that is known is that no complaint has been upheld.

Mr. Howard: As I indicated, my right hon. Friend will deal very fully with that point.

Mr. Rogers: I seem to recollect from the passage of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 that that figure was given and is in the public realm. I recollect that something


like 52 complaints had been put forward, and that the vast majority of them were considered to be relatively frivolous. Some had been investigated, even though they were not upheld. I think that the figure was around 50 between 1989 and the consideration of the Intelligence Services Act.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I cannot confirm or fail to confirm his recollection on that point.
The Security Service Act 1989 originally gave the Security Service the power to apply for warrants, to be signed by a Secretary of State, authorising entry on or interference with property. Those so-called "property warrants" applied, naturally enough, only to the two functions of the Security Service that were laid down in that Act.
The Intelligence Services Act 1994 extended the power to apply for property warrants to both the SIS and GCHQ and, with one caveat, allowed them to do so for each of their three main functions: national security, economic well-being and serious crime. The caveat was that a serious crime property warrant could not apply to a property in the United Kingdom.
Clause 2 extends the right to apply for property warrants in serious crime cases to the Security Service. It will allow the service to apply for such property warrants in serious crime cases in relation to property in the United Kingdom, although it leaves in place the restriction against the SIS and GCHQ doing so.
If the Security Service is to become an active participant in the fight against organised crime in Britain, it makes sense for it to be given the ability to deploy the full range of tools that it uses in its other work. The service has very particular skills and expertise, and, on occasion, it will need property warrants in order to carry out its functions effectively. It therefore seems sensible to allow it to have the right to apply for serious crime property warrants in relation to property in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, all such warrants require the approval of a Secretary of State, and are subject to scrutiny by the commissioner.
The work of the SIS and GCHQ, although it involves action against serious crime, is far more internationally focused. The SIS in particular has a remit which requires it to concentrate on the actions and intentions of persons abroad. The Bill makes no change to the role or responsibilities of either agency. We therefore do not consider it appropriate for the Bill to remove the restriction on SIS and GCHQ property warrants applying to property in the United Kingdom.
I greatly value, of course, the contribution that both the SIS and GCHQ make to the fight against serious crime. The fact that they are tasked by and enjoy close links with the law enforcement agencies provides a useful example and model of co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence services.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry for my over-eagerness earlier.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice said that the granting of a warrant will be up to a Secretary of State. Will he confirm, then, that, in the investigation of

a serious crime in Scotland, a member of the Security Service would seek such a warrant from the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Howard: I think that that would be the normal course of events, but the wording of the legislation is such that it is possible for more than one Secretary of State to grant and authorise that activity, and to sign such a warrant. The hon. Gentleman will understand the convenience of that, because frequently such warrants must be signed urgently, and the relevant Secretary of State may not be in the country at the time. Those arrangements are therefore as flexible as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like them to be.
Property warrants are clearly a potentially important element in the armoury of the Security Service in its work in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime. The service, however, does not underestimate just how intrusive a power that can be, and nor do I. Accordingly, the Bill limits the circumstances in which a property warrant may be applied for by the Security Service in serious crime cases.
The Security Service can obtain a property warrant only if it relates to conduct which falls within the definition of serious crime which is within the Bill. Conduct which falls within the definition is criminal activity which
involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain";
or involves a large number of people in pursuit of a common purpose; or is the kind of conduct for which someone with no previous convictions could reasonably expect to receive a prison sentence of three years or longer. Members of the House may well recognise that definition, as it is precisely the one used to govern the issue of warrants in serious crime cases under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The definition has worked successfully in connection with that Act, and we see no reason to depart from it for the current purpose.
Before I leave the subject of warrants, I should make one other point. There is no specific statutory authority for the present arrangements whereby chief officers of police may themselves authorise the use of intrusive surveillance equipment in tackling serious crime. There are guidelines that control police activity of that sort very closely, and there is no evidence that they are being abused.
However, I accept that, as the Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended, a statutory system would be preferable. That is another matter that we are currently working through with the Association of Chief Police Officers. But I do not see it as providing any cause for withholding from the Security Service the necessary powers that clearly are already, and will continue to be, governed by statute and set in the context of their own accountability arrangements.

Ms Liz Lynne: If the Security Service is granted a warrant, will the local police authority and local police officers on the ground be informed?

Mr. Howard: I do not know that it would necessarily be appropriate for the police to be informed of every operational detail of the work that the Security Service was carrying out. Of course, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, the local police would know in general terms of the work being carried out, because it would be taking place in support of their own activities,


but it does not necessarily follow that they would need to know all the operational details in every respect. I do not think that they would regard such knowledge as relevant in every case.
Clause 3 makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland, as it does to Scotland. The Security Service is a United Kingdom-wide organisation, and serious crime is a United Kingdom-wide problem. It therefore makes sense to ensure that the Security Service will be able to operate in its serious crime role throughout the United Kingdom. It will operate in support of the law enforcement agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the same way as it will in England and Wales.
Customs and Excise, too, is a United Kingdom-wide service, and the Security Service's work in support of it will be on the same basis throughout the United Kingdom. With regard to the police, in England and Wales the Security Service will be tasked by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and similar practical arrangements will be put in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the lead is currently with the Scottish crime squad and the Royal Ulster Constabulary respectively.
Over the years, the Security Service has built up very particular skills and expertise. It has a long record of successes in long-term intelligence gathering and the infiltration of hostile organisations. Those are precisely the kinds of skills increasingly required to deal with the menace of organised crime.
That is not to say that the police do not possess such skills—indeed, I pay tribute to the many successes that the police and the Customs and Excise have had in dealing with organised crime—but we need to respond to the threat of organised crime with the full range of resources and techniques at our disposal, which must include the resources and skills of the Security Service.
Initially, the number of officers that the service will be able to deploy in pursuit of the new function will be small. The resources that it will be able to devote to that area of its work in future will depend on external circumstances and on the competing demands on its resources. In particular, much will depend on the continuance of the ceasefires in Northern Ireland. The costs will be borne from within the Security Service's existing provision.
The menace of organised crime is large and growing. We must fight it with every means at our disposal. The participation of the Security Service in that war will reinforce our ability to fight it effectively, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: No one who has read the Home Affairs Committee's excellent report on organised crime should be in any doubt about the extent of the threat that such crime poses to this country and its citizens. The Select Committee was right to conclude that, taken as a whole, the extent of organised crime is a cause for serious concern.
Organised crime has not reached in the United Kingdom the proportions that it has reached in some other countries, and it is my fervent hope and belief that it never will. None the less, it is a cancer that, left unchecked,

destroys the very fabric of decent society and makes inoperable the rights and duties that are fundamental to any functioning democracy.
Some countries have been run by or for the benefit of organised crime. Panama under General Noriega was one notorious example, while Colombia has been another. The military regime in Nigeria is characterised not only by its brutal disregard for human rights, but by the associated complicity of the regime in serious and well-organised international criminal networks. The collapse of the Soviet Union and other communist bloc states has been the occasion for the development of highly organised criminal conspiracies in those countries, involving the trafficking of drugs and other contraband, illegal immigration and money laundering. Even within the EU, there are some member states where the tentacles of organised crime reach well into government, as they have in Italy and the south of France.
None of this organised crime—either outside the United Kingdom or within it—yet poses a threat to the security of the United Kingdom itself, but the Select Committee was right to say in its unanimous report that
the government and the police will need to take effective pre-emptive measures if an irretrievable expansion of organised crime in this country is to be avoided.
The question before the House in the form of the Bill is: what kind of pre-emptive measures will be appropriate and effective to meet the current and potential threat of organised crime?
Because of the power that they can wield over individual citizens, there is an absolute necessity in a democracy to ensure that all law enforcement agencies—the police, customs and the security services—are properly accountable for what they do within a clear statutory framework. As it happens, the accountability of the police was one of the first serious issues that I sought to tackle when I entered the House almost 17 years ago.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Too long.

Mr. Straw: It has indeed been too long—certainly too long on the Opposition Benches.
I introduced two ten-minute Bills aimed at strengthening the powers of police authorities by providing an independent element for the investigation of complaints against the police and for the establishment of a national police agency. These matters are relevant to the Bill, and have consequences to which I shall return later in my speech.
Of all the law enforcement agencies, the ones that understandably arouse the greatest potential anxiety are those that operate, albeit for very good reasons, most secretly—the intelligence agencies. Until recent years, the agencies worked under what I believed to be thoroughly unsatisfactory arrangements. There was no statutory framework for their operations and there was no accountability of any kind to Members of this House. During the past 11 years, there has been a marked change for the better. The Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 mean that there is now a statutory framework for the interception of communications, for the control and operation of the agencies themselves and for some accountability to this House through the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The arrangements might not be perfect—indeed, they might need to be strengthened in the light of experience—but they are a significant improvement on what went on before. I believe that that improvement has been welcomed by a great many of the dedicated staff of the agencies.

Mr. Mullin: On the question of strengthening the accountability procedures, does my hon. Friend recall that when the previous Intelligence Services Bill was going through the House, Labour Front-Bench Members stated that the Committee that was being set up should be made accountable to Parliament, and not to the Prime Minister? Is that still the position of Labour Front-Bench Members?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for asking that question and for letting me know that he was going to ask it. Of course we want the intelligence agencies to be properly accountable to this House. The question is how best that can be achieved while maintaining the operational integrity of the agencies. The arrangements have been in place following the 1994 Act, and it will be important to keep them under review. If they need to be strengthened, measures will be brought before the House to ensure that that is done.

Mr. Howard: So the answer is no.

Mr. Straw: No, the answer is maybe.

Mr. Rogers: As the person who was responsible for tabling those amendments during proceedings on the Bill that became the 1994 Act, I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) should raise that matter. He knows that the 150 amendments that we tabled did not represent the position of the Labour party but were probing amendments.

Mr. Straw: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. When the Bill was going through the House, my responsibilities related to the Department of the Environment, not to any of the agencies that we are discussing today. We all look forward to my hon. Friend's speech later in the debate.
I paid a brief tribute a few moments ago to the work of the staff of the Security Service. In doing so, I place on record my appreciation of the approach of the retiring Director-General of the Security Service, Mrs. Stella Rimington. She has led the way in ensuring greater visibility, and far more public understanding of the purpose of the Security Service and its broad methods of work, without compromising the necessary operational secrecy of that agency.
The proposal in the Bill to extend the work of the Security Service to work in support of the police in serious crime represents a clear departure from its existing functional limits. It is a change that should not be made lightly. It is one about which I thought long and hard before recommending to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should support the principle of the Bill. It is my view that there is a job to be done, that the Security Service has the skills and expertise necessary to deal with the job and that it should do the job, provided that Parliament is satisfied that it will take on the function and supplement the work of existing law enforcement agencies with adequate safeguards as regards its accountability.
Although we support the principle of the Bill, serious questions need to be answered today and during later stages of the Bill as to whether operational and accountability arrangements are satisfactory. Those questions relate to the definition of serious crime, to the relationship between the Security Service, the police and the other law enforcement agencies and to the consequences for the criminal justice system of involving Security Service employees in criminal justice investigations—in terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the giving of evidence and the handling of complaints.
Wider issues have to be examined, including the need for a single statutory regime for surveillance, about which the Secretary of State spoke a moment ago, and the future of national policing functions. I shall deal with those issues in turn.
In practice, the work of the Security Service in fighting organised crime is likely to be confined to assisting in the investigation of very serious organised crime. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Home Office included an informative working definition of organised crime, which is used by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but which runs to more than 500 words. It could not be incorporated into the Bill. The Select Committee advised in its opening recommendation that we should not hinder the work of law enforcement with over-precise definitions of organised crime.
None the less, while I take account of what the Secretary of State said in answer to my intervention, the current drafting of clause 1, which uses the term "serious crime" without qualification, may be too loose. I hope that that matter will be examined in Committee. The use of that term without qualification contrasts with the qualifications imposed on its use in clause 2 in relation to intercepts. The Secretary of State mentioned a few moments ago that the term "serious crime" in relation to intercepts means an offence which involves the use of violence that results in substantial financial gain or, for example, for which it would normally be expected that a first offender would receive a sentence of three years or more.
Since I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which the Security Service would be helping to investigate crimes unless there were a reasonable prospect of the perpetrator serving a sentence of three years or more, I should like to hear from the Minister why the term "serious crime" in clause I should not be similarly qualified.
It may be argued—the Secretary of State touched on this—that that precise form of wording was used in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 in respect of the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham. We are all well aware that parliamentary draftsmen become affectionately attached to words that they have got through the House once. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will remind us, one of the issues that he raised so eloquently during the Report stage of the 1994 Act was the definition of serious crime and whether it might have been better to have used a more qualified term.
It is accepted across the House that the role of the Security Service will be supplementary to that of the police and other law enforcement agencies. In his speech on the Loyal Address, the Secretary of State emphasised


that the expertise of the Security Service would be there to "help" the police. In a letter that the Minister of State wrote to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, he spoke of the Security Service supporting the police and other law enforcement agencies in tackling serious and organised crime.
Although the word "support" is used in the Bill, it is used in the context of support in respect of the
prevention or detection of serious crime".
The words, support of the work of the police, or words to that effect, are not used.
There is understandable anxiety, not least among some police officers, that the Security Service might start to take the lead in some investigations. As far as I can divine from the fairly Delphic wording of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, that was its anxiety, too. It spoke of the contrast between the SIS and GCHQ, whose tasks are generally set separately by Ministers, and the Security Service, which it said was essentially
self-tasking in relation to its existing statutory functions.
The Committee concluded, in paragraph 8:
In so far as the Service is to be given a new role in countering 'conventional' criminal activity, the legislation needs to make very clear that it will be working in support of the law enforcement organisations.
That conclusion is entirely right. The words,
in support of the law enforcement organisations
are the problem. They do not appear on the face of the Bill. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he would deal with that matter and answer the anxieties that I am raising and the serious anxieties raised in the unanimous report of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Mr. Sheerman: I was astounded that the Home Secretary did not give us any assurance of greater accountability, given this fundamental change in the law. If there is not to be any substantial increase in accountability, is not the fear that the tail of the security services will start to wag the dog of the criminal justice system justified?

Mr. Straw: That is an anxiety. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, who made it clear that the Bill's purpose was that the Security Service should assist law enforcement agencies—that it should not be self-tasking. Given the anxieties that have been raised and the natural anxieties that are bound to exist, and which are shared on both sides of the House, about the work of organisations such as the Security Service, which necessarily have to work in secrecy, it is better for such a qualification to be placed on the face of the Bill, particularly as the Intelligence and Security Committee has recommended that course.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am inclined to agree with that point, but does not the Bill open up the Security Service Act 1989? We can now examine the nature of the remits, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman. National security as a term or reference point has caused considerable anxiety to many of us, as it has throughout the western world. Are we to understand that Labour is likely to re-examine those definitions and tasks in Committee?

Mr. Straw: Yes. As I have said, we support the principle of the Bill, but have reservations about its wording and the precise arrangements for accountability in its operation. We shall certainly seek to raise those reservations in Standing Committee and on Report, if appropriate.

Mr. Shepherd: Why can that not be done here in the Chamber?

Mr. Straw: I am doing it here now.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have a sub-debate involving seated interventions.

Mr. Straw: The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman will have to be taken up with the usual channels, but I understand that there has been no argument about the intention to deal with the Bill in Standing Committee.
The change in the legislation will have an important impact on the criminal justice system. Because of the importance of its work to national security, Parliament, the public and the judicial system have accepted that the Security Service should be far less publicly accountable for its operations than the police or other law enforcement agencies. That has meant, for example, that officers in the Security Service have routinely given their evidence in court in camera, or without their true identities being disclosed.
As the Director-General of the Security Service said in her Dimbleby lecture,
M15 has no executive powers",
so any operations leading to the arrest of suspects, even within its existing functions, must be carried out by the police. None the less, national security—although extremely important—is a relatively narrow field. It must be accepted that in ordinary criminal trials, however serious, in which issues of national security are not involved, witnesses from the Security Service should not expect routinely to be treated differently from those from the police or customs. That would not exclude evidence being given in camera, or without the disclosure of true identity, when there were good reasons. Indeed, in certain circumstances, the police and customs already give evidence in that way. I believe, however, that the ground rules should be the same.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes lay down clear rules relating to the gathering of evidence by the police, but we need reassurance from the Minister on whether and how the requirements of PACE will work in respect of Security Service staff involved in joint operations in the investigation of serious crime.
The handling of complaints that arise from a joint police-Security Service investigation greatly concerns police officers to whom I have spoken. As complaints against a member of the Security Service are covered not by the Police Complaints Authority, but by quite separate arrangements, some police officers have expressed to me a fear that, if things go wrong, the police might be left to carry the can.
I accept that, when two separate agencies are working on a single investigation, there can be no tailor-made answer to the problem, just as there is no tailor-made answer to the problem of complaints involving a joint operation by police and customs. I believe, however, that


the matter should be considered further in Committee, that guidance should be published and that Ministers should consider explicit co-operation and access for the Police Complaints Authority to the Security Service commissioner in the event of complaints against both police and Security Service officers arising from a joint operation.
I shall now deal with two wider issues relating to the Bill and the overall policy framework behind it. First, there is the need—raised by the Home Secretary—for a single regime for interception, bugging and property intrusion. As the Home Secretary observed, at present, interception of communications generally is strictly controlled by statute, as is intrusion into property by the Security Service.
As the Home Affairs Committee said, there are significant gaps in those overall arrangements. Police intrusion into property is controlled non-statutorily and senior police officers have made it clear to me, as they did to the Select Committee, that they are anxious that their use of such powers is not properly based in law. In some cases, the police's operations in those areas make them vulnerable to civil actions for trespass at the very least. In addition, with the advance of technology since 1985, some surveillance techniques, including bugging, have become much more widely available, and they, too, are outside the current statutory framework.
I therefore welcome both the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations and the Secretary of State's confirmation that proposals to place the whole of that area on a single statutory footing will be brought before the House at an early opportunity.
The last issue that I wish to raise concerns the future of national policing arrangements. The Labour party strongly believes in locally based, locally accountable police services. Such a system has served the country well and is infinitely better than drifting into a national police force. It is also much better than ending up with competing overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions, as has happened in the United States.
We want the arrangements for locally based, locally accountable police services to be strengthened, not least through the establishment of proper democratic arrangements for local accountability of the Metropolitan police to the people of London in respect of that service's local police functions.
Some police functions, however, must be carried out nationally. The fact that that has always been so is one explanation for the distinctive arrangement of having the Home Secretary as the authority for the Metropolitan police. Over the past few years, that national arrangement has been formalised through the establishment of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the work achieved at the NCIS, but it is accepted across the House that it is in transition and needs greater clarity about its future structure and organisation. It is absurd that the NCIS is allowed to be involved in static surveillance but prohibited from following its target when it moves. The internal running of the organisation is complicated by the fact that all its staff are on secondment. The discipline of those police officers is, therefore, the ultimate responsibility not of the director of NCIS but of the police officers' parent chief constables. In the long term, that is not satisfactory.
The Home Affairs Committee also recognised that separate regional crime squads with no central executive direction should be replaced by a more nationally co-ordinated structure. During his speech at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister wrote up in lights the idea of establishing a national squad. Yesterday, however, the Minister of State gave a much more qualified response to the Select Committee's report on that proposal. He said that the creation of a national crime squad was not straightforward. I wonder whether he cleared his remark with Downing street, because it was not what the Prime Minister led us to believe. I see much advantage in having a national squad, but we accept that it would not be straightforward.

Mr. Beith: A Scottish Office spokesman made an even more qualified comment shortly before Christmas when asked whether the national squad would apply to Scotland. He told The Herald that his
department was looking into the idea and consulting with interested parties, but that judgment on the feasibility of the idea would be reserved until the consultation is complete".
The Prime Minister has suggested that a national squad is about to be created.

Mr. Straw: The Prime Minister, on this issue as on many others, was slightly ahead of himself when he made that speech.
I should be glad if the Minister would tell us, when he replies, whether we will have one national police operation or two. I inferred from what the Secretary of State said that there will be both a strengthened NCIS and a separate national crime squad to absorb the work of the regional crime squads.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I have here an extract from the Prime Minister's speech on 13 October 1995 in Blackpool. He said:
So for the first time ever, we're discussing with the police the establishment of a national squad. This will have one mission: to take on organised crime in this country and break it".
The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Prime Minister was ahead of himself.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of my point. For the avoidance of doubt, I, too, have brought along a copy of the Prime Minister's speech.
I have raised the question of whether the proposals will result in one national body or two. There is a strong case for establishing a single national police agency within a framework which would incorporate the work of the NCIS, the work of the regional crime squads and the remaining functions of the Metropolitan police that are primarily national in character.
Most of the crime that so blights people's daily lives is local in character. It involves yobbish behaviour, disorder, vandalism, street violence and burglary. Much of it appears to be highly disorganised and opportunistic, but behind much of the local and apparently disorganised crime lies the scourge of illegal drugs. Their supply is now part of a highly organised, international, multi-billion dollar industry. Totally ruthless individuals are ready to wreck the lives of thousands of young people and to destabilise communities in the pursuit of greed. In some countries, those ruthless individuals are ready to undermine the very foundation of decent society.
We welcome the use of any additional resources to help the police in their vital fight against organised crime. We have, as I have explained, some reservations about the arrangements for the operation and accountability of the Security Service in its new role. However, we welcome the principle and the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), with whom I had an earlier practice round on this matter elsewhere, described the issue of organised crime as a threat that had to be invented. I much preferred the language and the commitment of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who left no doubt of his and his right hon. and hon. Friends' recognition of the seriousness of the threat that faces this country from serious organised crime. That threat does not need to be invented. If anybody tried to dismiss it as lightly as that, he would be doing no service to the people of this country.
I know that the members of the all-party Intelligence and Security Committee agree with me about the seriousness of the threat. We have already studied the matter and, as the House knows, for convenience in advance of the debate and the Bill, we produced a report on Security Service work against serious organised crime. We believe that the seriousness of this problem is not to be underestimated.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when he introduced the debate, described serious organised crime as a menace to society. Certainly, we have to consider the implications of many aspects—I shall talk later about the threat from the drug trade—of organised crime: the fact that it is affecting society from so many different angles; the pervasiveness of the threat; and the capacity and organisation of serious organised crime. There can be no question but that we must ensure that we bring to bear all the resources available to a democracy to try to protect society from that threat.
The establishment of the drug trade must be, arguably, the most impressive feat of organisation in recent times. If it is a free market enterprise, urged on by the enormous profit potential that exists, one has to have some respect for the capacity of manufacture, export, import and distribution that has made those products available on such a scale in every constituency in this country and in every corner of the world. That has been achieved by massive, international organisation, backed up by intimidation, violence and ruthlessness on a scale that is a major threat to our society.
The present law enforcement agencies have had, by any standards, substantial successes. I understand that the street value of the drugs that were seized in the past year is some £500 million. However, even against that achievement, drug prices in real terms have fallen, which means that the product is readily available. Tragically, we know that to be the case. The importance of the challenge of dealing with the drugs trade cannot be underestimated against the background of the recent great personal tragedies that have occurred because of the continuing availability of illegal drugs.

Mr. Mullin: I do not want to spoil a good story, but some of the massive organisation behind the international drugs trade came from some of the regimes that the United States intelligence agency set up in south-east Asia and central America. That went on for so long because the Central Intelligence Agency was not accountable.

Mr. King: I shall not pursue that line because this is a serious problem. If we are distracted, we will do no service to the people of this country. I know the threat that is faced by my constituents and by the hon. Member's constituents and their children. Chasing after old issues will do no service to them.
The other crimes that are a threat develop from the drug trade, such as money laundering. We face risks from massive financial frauds and extortion, which are major threats to the economies of the world, not least to our own and to the City of London. Those are major international issues. I had never heard of advanced fee fraud until the arrests that took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), as has been mentioned. When those arrests were made, we began to hear some evidence about the scale of the international conspiracy that was involved. That was manifest robbery, being conducted on a massive international scale. Other problems include letter of credit fraud, benefit fraud and immigration fraud. Those are not small-time activities, but are becoming international conspiracies that are a major threat to our country.
I noticed, in connection with my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to India, that the master forgers—he described Madras as possibly the world capital for forgery—are now believed to have cracked every security feature of the British visa. Coupled with financial fraud and rackets on that scale is the extortion and intimidation of those who are involved.
Madras may be the world capital for forgers, but there is some concern that eastern Europe may be the world capital for counterfeiting. The threat to the currencies of the world from counterfeiting—another international fraud that could threaten the currency of our own country—must also be of great concern to us.
We know that there are problems with drugs, other forms of fraud and major criminal activity, accompanied by intimidation, as I said, by extortion and by murders. We have seen that happening on our streets and the threat to our police forces. We know of the fear that now exists in our major cities. We never hoped to see such fear although we knew that it existed in, for example, the United States. We have seen the growth of ethnic gangs, with the Afro-Caribbean influence in the importation of crack and the west African association with benefit fraud and the drug trade.
The product of criminal activity in the world, especially in the drugs trade, is now estimated to amount to $500 billion a year. The impact of that on the whole international financial framework simply cannot be dismissed as a new and rather interesting sideline. I believe that it is a major threat to the national fabric and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, a menace to our society. Against that background, we are discussing whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading today and whether the Security Service should be brought into the fight against serious organised crime.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend gives voice to major concerns felt by all of us in the House.


However, he may be aware that the Security Service Act 1989 sets out the remit of the Security Service; that is part of the problem. The Act says:
The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats of espionage, terrorism and sabotage…It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
The remit is already widely drawn. Why is it necessary to extend it? The main points are covered in the 1989 Act.

Mr. King: That is precisely the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made. As he realises, there is much that is not covered. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the threat to national economic well-being. I am discussing some of the things that cannot at the moment be described as such, but which, if we do not pay attention to them, will become so.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—I remembered this today—that John F. Kennedy wrote a book called "While England Slept" in which he talked about the fact that this country nearly lost its independence and freedom because it failed to recognise the imminent threats and because it slept as the threats grew. Against that background, to engage in these issues and to pretend that the threats are well met by the present position is wrong.
I shall return to my normal balanced and calm role, with my responsibility as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We take these matters seriously. We believe that the Security Service can bring a distinct package of skills to bear. However, in our report, which I hope the House found useful, we set out a number of concerns. We believe that the concerns are agreed between the parties, as our report makes clear. We believe that the primacy of responsibility must remain with the law enforcement agencies and that the Security Service should act only in support of them.
I support what the hon. Member for Blackburn said on this point; these are matters that need examination. I understand the arguments used by the Home Secretary who can pray in aid the Home Affairs Select Committee in support of his position. These are matters that the Standing Committee will have to address. I do not think that there is anything between us. The problem is how the role of the Security Service is defined in the Bill. There is no question of a secret Security Service police force being set up as a separate activity. The Security Service must act in support and the legislation must make that clear.
The point was well brought out by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) when she asked whether information about warrants issued to the Security Service would go to the police authorities. She asked whether there would be self-tasking by the Security Service and whether it would appear to be going for warrants on its own initiative without the police knowing. That is an area of concern that must be clarified and on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought to reply earlier.
The Home Affairs Select Committee raised the point—I welcome the Home Secretary's response—about the police issuing their own warrants and about the activities of chief constables. We do not yet have information about how freely chief constables make use of their warrant

powers; we would be grateful for further information on that. However, we welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is discussing the issue with the Association of Chief Police Officers so that we can get the matter clarified.
We also welcome the references in this debate to the need for a better definition of serious organised crime. As has been said, the present definition has been lifted from the Interception of Communications Act 1985. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), whom I consulted and who is sitting behind the Home Secretary now. He advised me that the definition of somebody who was likely to receive three years for a first offence could include somebody who was guilty of a series of burglaries, of a mugging or of a wounding with intent. Those offences are clearly not intended to be covered by the Bill. There is no suggestion that a Secretary of State should be entitled to give a warrant for the interception of communications to the Security Service for crimes that, compared with serious organised crime as envisaged in the Bill, are petty although serious in the normal criminal sense. Clearly, that area needs attention.
The House will accept that the matters I have raised are ones for the Standing Committee. We believe that the general concept is widely supported. The issue that still needs attention, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary fairly recognised, is the development of a national crime squad. It could be argued that one should not proceed with the idea of introducing the Security Service into dealing with serious organised crime until one was clear with what body it would be working and what the ultimate arrangement in law enforcement would be. But that proposition has not been advanced by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
We believe that the issue is so important that with good sense and building on the work already being done by National Criminal Intelligence Service, there is every justification for making progress in introducing the Security Service and its distinct package of skills. However, we believe that there is a need for early understanding and for progress towards the arrangements within which the Security Service will ultimately work.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he introduced the proposal at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, used a memorable phrase. He said that young people in this country were far less likely to be killed by an enemy missile than they were to be at risk from a drug dealer on the streets of our towns. That is right. The threats our young people face will be wider than that in the future. Pornography and a range of other matters can corrupt and undermine our society. The most effective action we can organise is justified.
The Security Service can make a significant and useful contribution against that background. I support the Bill on Second Reading and I support the need for sensible and constructive discussion in Committee to ensure that the valid concerns about the Bill are properly met.

Mr. Allan Rogers: It is a pleasure to come out of the monastic seclusion of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the Cabinet Office and to be able to talk about the issues this afternoon. They are important, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) may think that they are trivial. I am a simplistic person who believes that, generally, the framework of law in a free society is there to protect people and not necessarily to restrict their freedom. I judge every measure that comes before the House in terms of how it will affect my constituents—the people who have elected me to Parliament.
At the outset, I endorse and support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I also welcome the Government's positive action in the matter. However, I am disappointed with the undue haste in legislating on that proposal. I do not know whether it is the result of a vacuum in the legislative programme, but it is putting the cart before the horse.
The issue that we considered in the Intelligence and Security Committee was in what way the Security Service might "plug in", if I may use that term, to the law enforcement agencies so that extremely limited resources might be deployed effectively. The general feeling that I get from speaking to people is that the Security Service is a massive organisation, which can deploy thousands of people, with huge resources, to that task.
As I represent a mining constituency, and having been through the miners' strike, I disagree profoundly with the theory that the Security Service has had only a very simple counter-espionage and counter-subversion role in the past few years. It is now fairly clear that it played some part in the miners' strike, but I do not want to go down that lane especially.
What disappoints me about the introduction of the Bill is the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said, the setting up of the required working relationship is a complicated problem, which could not be resolved by the simple addition of a phrase to the Security Service Act 1989. It deserved far more than what is in the Bill. It is all very well to say, "We can resolve that problem in Committee", but according to the Home Secretary, we are talking about a short Bill of two or three clauses, which will be substantially amended or added to in Committee. That is not the way to introduce legislation.
There have been cries that that matter should be discussed on the Floor of the House in the way that the Security Service Bill was discussed in 1989. If, however, the matter goes into Committee upstairs, the House should consider what legislation will go up there. It is not good enough to say, "We tagged on a sentence to a previous Act and then let it be amended further in a different way." I know that it will be argued, and has been argued, that the Bill provides only a framework, but on a contentious matter, which may have profound constitutional implications, the devil will be in the detail and that detail must be hammered out. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Government did not take full note of the report that the Intelligence and Security Committee sent to the Prime Minister before the Christmas recess.
I am worried that the Bill is likely to undo the substantial progress that has been made in bringing the intelligence and security agencies out of the closet in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on what they have achieved. At the heart of the matter is the issue of using secret services in a free democracy as part of our everyday policing of that democracy. As Sir Paul Condon said in his 1995 Police Foundation lecture, which I referred to in an intervention earlier:
there is a great belief and adherence in this country to the notion of individual freedom and liberty. Without doubt, people want to enjoy life unhindered by crime and the fear that it produces, and look to the police to enforce and maintain the law firmly. However, at the same time, they do not want intrusive methods, overt force or a lack of discretion to impose unnecessarily upon their everyday lives".
That is the balance that must be achieved in the argument and in the operation of the Bill.
One of the arguments that has been developed during the debate is that surrounding the question of whether there is a need for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South suggested that the need was being invented. I could not disagree with him more profoundly, and I do not believe that most people, when they consider their constituency, would accept that a need is being created.
Regardless of what we may say in support and praise of the law enforcement agencies, there is no doubt in my mind that the battle against organised and serious crime is being lost on the streets of my constituency. I witness evidence of that in the tragedies that take place among young children—even some of junior school age—whose lives, freedoms, liberties and choices for the future are being circumscribed by the evil men who operate in the milieu that we are discussing.

Mr. Mullin: No one questions that there is a serious problem, especially in relation to drugs. What we question is whether the intelligence services, which do not have a very good record of accountability, are the appropriate way of tackling it. If it is such a big issue, why are we talking, as I understand that we are, about only 20 or 30 personnel being transferred to that work? It is quite a small matter. I therefore feel that that is a put-up job.

Mr. Rogers: That is where I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend. Perhaps we come from different positions and hold different attitudes about that, but I believe that it was Senator Barry Goldwater who said that extremism in defence of liberty is a virtue and moderation can be a vice. I shall return to that matter later.
In paragraph 7 of our report, the Committee said that there were
certain key aspects that have not yet been fully resolved. They relate to the tasking, command, integration and accountability of the Service, particularly where its work extends into the operational field (in the areas of surveillance, agent handling and the use of technical devices); there is still much work to be done on the practicalities of co-operation in an area where the Service must operate clearly within the constraints of the Criminal Justice System.
I resent the idea that those of us who support the Bill are letting loose a monster on society. I do not believe that that is true. My experience of coming into contact with people who work in those services is that, by and


large, they are extremely dedicated people and very anxious that there should be a legislative framework in which they would operate. As I say, perhaps quite differently from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, having spent a year on the picket lines supporting the miners of my constituency, I will give way to no one in wanting the services and the law enforcement agencies made accountable. I am not coming from a position of weakness in that respect or trying to defend my attitude towards civil liberties or citizens' rights. There must be a balance, and we are trying to achieve that. That is what we are trying to argue today and, I hope, in Committee.

Mr. Ashby: I speak as someone who finds himself frequently, in those issues, on the side of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
Did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) hear the programme on Radio 4 this morning in which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) reminded us that the security services possibly had a massive, continually growing file on her in relation to her Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament activities many years ago? That would be inappropriate nowadays, in 1996, when we realise how trivial and how stupid it was, yet one recalls what one thought at the time and the way in which one operated. Things change.
How do the hon. Gentleman, and the Committee on which he serves, regard such matters? We must consider the relationship between the security forces and the police forces. It is a difficult aspect of policy. How does he regard it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is turning into a small speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Rogers: At the press conference following the first meeting of the Committee, I was asked by journalists whether, during the first couple of weeks, I had been able to gain access to my MI5 file, detailing my membership of certain groups. I therefore quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is right to say that society is dynamic and that things change. Our attitudes, too, must change; we must reflect what is going on outside and not become entrenched in dogmatic attitudes to the secret state. We could easily spend all year philosophically discussing the secret state in a democracy.
Our premier policeman, Sir Paul Condon, also said in his lecture of last year that he was not confident that we could enter the 21st century with the status quo in relation to combating organised and international crime. If our top policeman says that something is wrong, we should surely acknowledge his expert advice. I would not claim that Sir Paul is a spy under the bed, working against the interests of society at large. Given his attitude, and other evidence that I have seen, I believe that the status quo must be altered and that we have a duty to bring all our available resources to bear against these evil people.
International crime is soaring, and unless we do something about it now, the game will get ahead of us—perhaps irretrievably, as the Home Affairs Select Committee said last year in its excellent report. Frontiers are coming down, trade is expanding, financial services and technological developments are all making the profits from crime easier to recycle and launder.
One of the biggest problems for crime syndicates is disposing of their money. That is why I am disappointed by the fact that the Government do not regulate the City

and our money markets with as much enthusiasm as they watch for social security swindlers, as they call them. Perhaps if they controlled some of the fat cats up the road a little more diligently, we would be more prepared to accept what they say about ordinary people who may cheat the social security system out of a pound or two.
There is no doubt that the evil people who control crime are winning the battle and are seizing every opportunity to do so. They exploit every weakness to expand their empires. As a result, in recent years we have all heard the cries for change.
The Select Committee did an excellent job for the country last year by publishing its comprehensive report. Its conclusion—that the fight against organised crime must involve more than just the usual law enforcement agencies—acted, perhaps, as a trigger for this debate. I am, however, concerned about the reticence expressed in paragraph 55:
While we recognise that intelligence gathering has a vital role to play in the fight against organised crime we do not conclude that the present situation yet calls for substantial inroads to be made into ordinary citizens' freedom from intrusion by the State".
We could all agree with that as a general statement, but it concerned arguments about the Government's right to examine tax records and other paperwork relating to people suspected of serious financial crimes.
In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, I referred to what Senator Barry Goldwater said in 1964:
Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
That is why I fail to understand the moderation and reticence of the Home Affairs Select Committee on this point.

Mr. Bermingham: If my hon. Friend reads the whole of paragraph 55, he will find that we said that we had not examined the matter in detail and were therefore not in a position to make a recommendation. Does he agree that experience teaches that the last thing that a major criminal ever does is file a tax return?

Mr. Rogers: I cannot therefore see why the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, referred to tax returns. I referred to them only because I saw them mentioned in the report.

Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Goldwater also said that America should drop the nuclear bomb on Vietnam to blow the leaves off the trees so that the Americans could see whom they were fighting? I do not, however, see how that assists the debate.

Mr. Rogers: Neither do I. I wonder why my hon. Friend mentioned it—

Mr. George Galloway: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from me that he is probably the only Labour Member of Parliament ever to quote Senator Barry Goldwater with approbation in a speech dealing with civil liberties. The Senator was one of the most reactionary, anti-democratic and anti-freedom people in the entire history of United States politics.

Mr. Rogers: In general I would agree, but he did get one thing right—the quotation I have given the House.
I return to the central point that there are evil people at large, even in our junior schools. Our children need protection from those criminals. There have been tragic


suicides and overdoses; there have been ruined lives and parental heartbreaks. We are all aware of the increase in drug-related crime, and in muggings, assaults, robberies and car theft. People have a right to protection from such crimes—a fact to be borne in mind in any discussion of liberties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I last summer launched a drugs campaign at the beginning of the school holidays in our respective constituencies. I was amazed to learn the extent to which drug taking has infiltrated schools—the right hon. Member for Bridgwater has heard me say as much before. The idea is that people should be helped to help themselves, so in the Rhondda valley and in Taff-Ely we have set up drug awareness groups that can help, among other things, to relieve the misery of mothers whose kids have committed suicide or died from overdoses. They are in a good position to describe which citizens' rights need defending. They look to us to create a framework in which their rights can be defended.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friends who have intervened that a balanced measure is called for here. We cannot allow a secret organisation in our criminal justice system without a proper system of accountability.

Mr. Winnick: In an intervention, my hon. Friend said to my hon. Friend the Labour Front-Bench spokesman that, when we were considering last year's Bill, the amendments in Committee were probing amendments.

Mr. Rogers: Some of them were.

Mr. Winnick: Would I be right in saying that, when my hon. Friend, supported by all Labour Members, pressed from the Committee Front Bench that the scrutiny Committee should be accountable to Parliament, that was not a probing amendment? We were committing ourselves. With his experience of the Committee that he has been speaking about, does he agree that what we said in Committee is right and proper, even more so if MI5 is going to have its work extended? In the way in which the Committee operates, there should be proper accountability to Parliament; it should not simply be to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Rogers: It would be presumptuous of me to presume on the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition, who I hope will be the next Prime Minister, and to say what his views will be about how the system will be organised. The day after he wins the next election, he will be responsible for the intelligence and security services, so it would be extremely presumptuous of me to prejudge his view in this matter.
However, as my hon. Friend has asked me, I can relate that matter only to the working of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Part of the problem that we are attempting to overcome is the extremely difficult dilemma of balancing the responsibility that we have been charged with statutorily with our responsibility to parliamentarians. As Committee members, we must have trust from both sides. We must have trust from the agencies that we are there to oversee, involving administration, finance and policy development, but we also have a responsibility to our fellow parliamentarians. Our first responsibility statutorily, however—there was no big argument about this in Committee following the amendments that we tabled—is to the Prime Minister who appointed us and who, in law, is responsible.
I accept that a dilemma exists and that there will be a dilemma for the Labour Government as to exactly how far they go in opening the intelligence and security services to the public gaze, but that matter is not for me: it is for the Leader of the Opposition or the next Prime Minister to expound himself. As I said, I would not be that presumptuous. However, I know that it is important to militate all resources in pursuit of crime.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am still puzzled at this. We are at some disadvantage in the House in that we cannot reach in and know the evidence that has led the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that this formula of words or the Bill is appropriate. For instance, I do not know why it was not possible for the views of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be published by the Committee, unless there is some injunction against that, but I have not heard anything as to the balance of the argument. Who supports the measure? Do the police support the security services having a purchase into intimate domestic matters that affect our civil liberties, with all the panoply of the Official Secrets Act 1911—the right to designate individuals, the absolute offences attached therein, bugging—the whole thing? What was the clinching argument that convinced the hon. Gentleman that this is the appropriate way forward? Who supported it?

Mr. Rogers: I was coming to the accountability issue in relation to the Bill's proposals, with which I do not agree particularly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen closely when I started my speech. I said that I was most disappointed by the fact that the Bill was only a one-sentence addition to the Security Service Act 1989. I have substantial reservations.
I did say that a Committee is not the place to amend such a short Bill and that we should not then lumber it with what the Home Secretary said he was prepared to take on board. It would have been far better if the Government had taken their time, and presented a far more comprehensive Bill so that we could have discussed it properly. Rightly, the issue is what is serious crime as described in the Bill.
The Home Affairs Select Committee rightly said—this is the basic issue that we should be considering—that
the search for intelligence about organised criminal activity should not be hindered by concern about precise definitions of what is and what is not 'organised' crime.
In the desire to define organised crime, we should not hinder the pursuit of criminals. The NCIS and the Home Office, however, have come up with a definition. One could read at great length those different definitions, but why did not the Government wait until publication and consider the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, where we discuss the problems of serious and organised crime, before publishing the Bill?
A simple illustration will demonstrate my point. Sexual child abuse could be an individual act; that is a serious crime. The collective acts of paedophile and child pornography rings are also serious crimes, but they are organised crime. Surely we are not suggesting that the security services should be involved in individual criminal acts, but that is the suggestion in clause 2(3B)(a) and (b). That is why I have substantial reservations about the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech. On his last point, I can see


a danger. He seems to be arguing in favour of the use of the word "organised" and the paedophile ring that he has taken as an example may be a good one. Would he not be concerned that, if we had a definition using the word "organised", some serious paedophile offenders with some clever lawyers might escape justice and walk scot free because they managed to prove to the courts that, although they were serious criminals, they were not organised as such, or the Security Service would be found to have been acting inappropriately in pursuing people who proved that they were not organised?

Mr. Rogers: Frankly, that is a trivial point. If the Government's legislative lawyers cannot come up with a decent form of words other than what is in the Bill, I should like to know what they are being paid for. I do not know whether the phrase "serious and/or organised crime" could be incorporated in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will not leave it in this simplistic context.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Mr. Rogers: I do not want to give way again as I want to conclude my speech simply by saying again why I have strong reservations about the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this measure puts the cart before the horse. The policing structures in Great Britain are not available to use the security services' resources to the best advantage.
As was said earlier in the debate, we all want police forces to maintain their traditional impartiality and to be accountable to local communities. Those are the real strengths in protecting and preserving individual freedoms, but, manifestly, the present structures do not work and the battle is being lost. Everyone who has considered the matter, from the Home Affairs Select Committee, to the Association of Chief Police Offers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the security services, and anyone and everyone who has given evidence on this matter, acknowledges that. Sir Paul Condon's phrase, that in some places the foundation is too weak to sustain additional pressure and change, is correct.
Although I welcome the fact that the Security Service is to be involved in organised and serious crime, I feel that the Government have not given sufficient consideration to the structure of the Bill to allow it to pass Second Reading without some criticism.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that the Bill was short and—I think he said—sensible. I trust that my contribution will be the same; it will certainly be short.
Over Christmas, I received letters about drugs from four children from Whetstone in my constituency. The children were aged between eight and 11, and I suspect that their primary school teacher might have put them up to it. All the children—the oldest was Simon Clay, aged 11—said that they were worried about drugs, and that the Government should do something about it. I am delighted that our drugs education programme is getting through. All four letters suggested that we should employ what they called "the secret service" to deal with drug dealers. I suggest that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings comes the truth.
In the city of Leicester, if not in my constituency, organised crime, particularly drug dealing and trafficking, is rife, and we see the problems spreading. In the past

fortnight, there have been shootings in Belfast by a deceitful IRA front organisation called Direct Action Against Drugs. It claims to be against people involved in drugs.
Violence is certainly perceived as increasing in our society. There has been the business with knives, and in the past six weeks we have seen the tragic murder of Mr. Lawrence. We have seen guns used more often and police being assaulted. In the past couple of days, a chief constable has expressed his concern in the newspapers. All that is often linked to gangs. Three apparent drug dealers—I cannot comment from knowledge—were murdered in a Range Rover beside a reservoir in Essex during the past month.
In the House, we are often accused of being out of touch. It is true that we are insulated. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who made what was generally an extremely sensible speech, said that we are not necessarily at the front line in the war against drugs. That is fair. We do not hang around in playgrounds or on campuses where drug dealers are to be found.
To a certain extent, we are insulated by virtue of our age as well as our life style from the reality of much of the drug dealing in the back streets of our inner cities. The people of our country are not insulated, and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the parents of young people who are at risk from drugs and criminal violence want sensible action for themselves and their children.
Violence is the most frightening manifestation of organised crime, but the power and the rackets of syndicates, whether from Latin America or south-east Asia, can and do spread. Organised crime involving the Mafia, the so-called Russian mafia, eastern European groups and other international groups is becoming more evident in western Europe.
As I have said, drugs are an obvious manifestation, but, as the Select Committee report pointed out, the international organised crime groups are involved in other huge and lucrative rackets such as counterfeit currency, money laundering, smuggling, illegal immigrants—that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—possibly nuclear smuggling, illegal weapons dealing and high-technology crime, which, although I do not understand it, is certainly understood by them. They might be involved in prostitution—although I believe that the white slave trade is a bit outdated—and a raft of other criminal activities which threaten the fabric of our society. It may sound as if I am overstating the issue, but to some people in our cities, such problems are a grave worry every minute of their day.
I fear that we are less likely now to find honour among thieves. Those kindly avuncular crooks such as Fagin have been replaced by ruthless and violent gangs who will intimidate police officers, prison officers, judges and juries as well as the families of those people. Sadly, that is a growing problem, and the man and woman in the street, if they still exist, fear organised crime and the increase in violence which are typified by the shootings and stabbings I have mentioned.
With tongue in cheek, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) suggested, to a certain extent rightly, that the job of the security services now has less to do with countering Soviet spies. That is self-evident. Threats to the United Kingdom remain, but the KGB and eastern


European security services have changed. I recall the activities of the Bulgarian secret service agent, although I cannot remember his name—

Mr. Allason: Georgi Markov.

Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend. He was murdered on a bridge with the tip of an umbrella, which introduced cyanide or some other poison into his system. Such agents no longer exist.
I fear that some opponents of the Bill have watched too many James Bond films and read too much Le Carre. They tend to see anybody in the security services as a cross between Walter Mitty and a character from the pages of Fleming or Gerald Seymour. Indeed, such people do exist—I remember Mr. Bettany, who was a Walter Mitty character.
The vast majority are not like that. When I was in the Army, I saw a little of the work of the Security Service, and I can speak with some experience. I was generally impressed by the hard-working and highly capable people who were often using extremely sophisticated equipment which required complicated training. They showed great skill in gathering intelligence.
Violent international organised crime is not so dissimilar to subversion and terrorism, which the Security Service is used to combating. The Security Service is an excellent organisation, which, as has been said, is perhaps not used as intensively as it was. It is as well suited to assisting in the battle against organised crime as it has been to dealing with previous threats against our society.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a speech which I thought was generally very sensible. He mentioned our local county police forces and supported that system. I also support that structure. It is well liked, and I wish to see it continue. I do not believe that a national police force such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) would find favour with the population. Organised crime is not just based in a county such as Leicestershire or in the Metropolitan police area. The need for national organisations is well understood. I am glad to see that the DNA database which was set up recently is working.

Mr. Ashby: That is national.

Mr. Robathan: As my hon. Friend says, it is a national database.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem with local police forces, regional crime squads and the security services is caused by funding? For example, the NCIS will often develop from its computer information about a particular group of people who are seeking to import drugs. It may be that regional crime squad No. five—the south-east regional crime squad—is allocated. It then has to go to, for example, the Essex police or Kent police to ask whether it is all right to act. I have been told that, on a number of occasions, the necessary funds have not been available. Unless there is a national funding system, things fall apart, and the criminals are not caught.

Mr. Robathan: That is a good point. I am not against nationally based organisations. I wish to see our police force developed further, while remaining based in local areas. There is great affection for that system within local populations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned drug dealing, which we are discussing today, but crime in the streets of his constituency or my constituency may remain local, and should be dealt with locally as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman made a good point about funding, which, although it is a real issue, is possibly not the issue being dealt with today.
I should like to see the national Security Service used against national and international crime in the way that has been described. It is a development of our resources, and I believe that the development of institutions is usually better than any revolutionary or radical change.
This Bill will consolidate the existing organisations and improve their workings and usage. The people on the streets of Britain want action against organised crime, which concerns them greatly, so they will welcome the employment of the Security Service in the fight against crime. Liberal Democrat opposition to the Bill is but another example of slightly misguided ideology—putting so-called civil liberties before the liberties of all citizens of the United Kingdom, who should be allowed to live their lives and go about their lawful business in freedom and security.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to take account of two related concerns. First, the workings of the Security Service must remain covert and secret. Details about operational techniques or individual security officers should not be revealed in open court. We need to protect the weapon—the body—that we want to use against organised crime. Officers will not be operating in uniform; they will be operating covertly.
Secondly, the people who will try to find out details about the service and the techniques will be clever lawyers working for the benefit of clients who may or may not be criminals with powerful, violent organisations behind them. If we want the Security Service—the secret service, as it was called by my constituents aged eight to 11—to remain secure, we must ensure that the law does not undermine that by demanding the identity of security officers.
That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I fully accept his point that accountability is important, but on this occasion the hon. Gentleman and I take different positions. I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can reassure me that the work of the Security Service will not be undermined or negated by slick, clever, overpaid lawyers.

Mr. Ashby: In my hon. Friend's reference to a slick, clever, overpaid lawyer, does he mean a lawyer who gets an innocent man acquitted or a guilty man convicted?

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a lawyer, is right on cue. Indeed, he obviously has personal experience of the issue. I do not think that any hon. Member would want innocent people to be convicted, but many in this House, as well as many people less insulated from the workings of society, are concerned that our criminal justice


system enables barristers to be paid so much money that they work to obtain acquittals for clients who, in their hearts, they believe might be guilty.

Mr. Ashby: Those barristers get £180 a day.

Mr. Robathan: Apparently, the poor barristers get only £180 a day. However, I have met one or two who earn a great deal more than a quarter of a million pounds a year. Perhaps they have obtained acquittals for one or two guilty men.
I welcome the Bill, which I believe will play a valuable role in the fight against organised crime. It will be welcomed by everyone in the country except criminals, organised crime syndicates and, perhaps, Liberal Democrats.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to have the opportunity to say that I accept that there is a useful role for the Security Service in assisting in the fight against organised crime. Our amendment sets out the ways in which we believe the Bill does not satisfy that objective. It almost exactly parallels the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I hope the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will read. It explains why we think that the Bill should have been cast in a different way.
Another danger arising not just from the hon. Gentleman's speech but from some other speeches is that we might create expectations that the proposed changes cannot satisfy. It will be of no service to those who work in MI5 to create expectations that cannot reasonably be satisfied.
My assumption is that the numbers of staff initially made available will be very small, so that the number of inquiries in which they can be involved must also be very small. Perhaps only a bare handful of inquiries will be undertaken at any one time. We must not lead people to expect that the massive problems of drug trafficking, violent crime, international criminal organisations and all manner of other offences—even prostitution, which the hon. Member for Blaby mentioned—can be significantly tackled by such a small number of people.
The suggestion by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in response to Dame Stella Rimington, the Director-General of the Security Service, was that the analytical skills of the Security Service could be brought to bear in cracking some of the criminal syndicates. It could usefully supplement the capacity of the police if those skills were brought to bear in an appropriate way. However, I do not believe that the Bill will secure that. It does not match the intentions described by the Home Secretary today.
To some extent, I was reassured by what the Home Secretary said he sought to do through the Bill. However, as he said it, I was reminded of a remark by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in another context—that, having taken a Bill to a Special Standing Committee where it was examined in a more inquisitorial way, he quickly discovered that it did not meet the purposes for which it had been drafted, and even with amendment could not be made to meet those purposes. Ministers sometimes set out their intentions but then find that a Bill does not meet them.
If the Security Service is to use the capacity that I have described in support of the law enforcement agencies, it must be on a tasked basis. That is how the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ currently support law enforcement internationally. They are asked to do certain things to back up the attempt to crack international drug smuggling or to locate organised gangs trying to commit crimes. They set about those tasks and then provide the authorities concerned with helpful intelligence that can be acted upon.
The Bill does not provide such a procedure for Security Service involvement in the fight against organised crime. The police lead is not specified in the Bill. I would be much happier if it were made clear in the Bill, as the Committee suggested in its report, that the work must be in support of the law enforcement agencies. If we do not get that right, we run the risk of undermining the authority and confidence of the police.
The Bill does not deal with the present differences in the way that the Security Service operates. Its director-general has a responsibility to interpret the remit of the service and to decide the priorities, in a way that does not apply to the directors of the other two services in the area. They are tasked by Departments to do certain things.
The Security Service has a unique responsibility to consider the matters within its remit and assess the extent to which they represent a threat to the security of the state or the economic well-being of the country, and then to take appropriate action. The service reports to the Home Secretary on that action, but the tasking responsibility lies with the service. If we imported that procedure into the work of the Security Service as it relates to the police and organised crime, it would not fit with what the Home Secretary envisaged in his description—it would be a very different structure indeed.
Theoretically, if the Security Service were to operate on the same basis as it does in other areas, it would decide whether the priority was gang warfare in Manchester, for example, and then deal with it independently—whether or not the chief constable of Manchester thought that it was the highest priority or that it was not currently being sufficiently tackled by the resources available to him.

Mr. Rogers: As I understood the Home Secretary, he said that the Security Service, in its envisaged role, would be tasked by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I realise the implications of that, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did cite a precise tasking master.

Mr. Beith: I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary use those words, but the NCIS is not mentioned in the Bill. Indeed, the notion that the Security Service will be tasked by anybody is not mentioned in the Bill. The parent Act gives the Security Service the responsibility to assess for itself where the threat lies and where to deploy its resources.
My experience as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, albeit for only a short time, is that the services work to their statutory remits and that they are different. The culture of the services that have a tasked relationship with customers—that is, the SIS and GCHQ—is different from that of the Security Service. It is the direct and proper result of the fact that the statutes are framed differently.
The Home Secretary's civil servants—perhaps for ease of drafting—have simply hung the change that he wants to make on the peg of the existing remit. The Intelligence


and Security Committee sought to explain why that would not work unless the remit was restricted in some way. Unless it is made clear that the work has to be undertaken in support of the law enforcement agencies and with their consent, it will import an inappropriate new kind of self-tasking into the fight against organised crime, which in no way corresponds with what the Home Secretary says that he is seeking to do.
My concern is further underlined by the way in which the Bill is drafted in respect of the co-ordination between the Security Service and the police. The Director-General of the Security Service is told, as it were, to write the rules for co-ordination between the Security Service and the police. The Bill casts on the director-general the responsibility for ensuring that arrangements for co-ordination are in place. A strange back-door way of specifying that co-ordination should exist has been found.
It is not adequate to let—in effect—the Security Service write its own rules. I do not say that because I think that it will do so in any improperly motivated way. I just do not think that it is a sensible way to do it. We do not give the police such responsibility. We do not tell them that it is their job to arrange co-ordination with the local community. We enact provision for police authorities. We enact the main features of the relationship between the police and the rest of the community, and we should do the same with the Security Service.
The rules which are to be set up for co-ordination are not subject to approval by anybody. They are not the subject of a statutory instrument which comes before the House, nor do they have to go before the Intelligence and Security Committee. Once the director-general is satisfied that arrangements exist, the machine can start and roll into effect. Her or his decision that the arrangements are in place is sufficient to start the clock, which is not satisfactory.
A further weakness in the Bill is that there is no national structure into which all the proposals are being plugged. The National Criminal Intelligence Service is not mentioned in the Bill. The police national squad is still a creature of Government speculation and imagination rather than reality. The Prime Minister set out the idea in his speech but, as I quoted earlier, the Scottish Office said that the feasibility of the idea—the principle of it—was still being examined so far as it affected Scotland.
We are being invited to grant the Security Service the right to a relationship with a police national structure which might exist in a year's time. It might be UK-wide; it might just affect England and Wales. It is not clear.

Mr. Rogers: It is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is putting the cart before the horse.
I have not yet been convinced by the evidence that I have been shown that so much can be achieved in the months between the Bill going through the House and the decision on the national squad and Scotland to make its passing absolutely essential before the Government have completed their consultations on wider matters.
Indeed, if the matters are so important, why have the Government not got on with them? After all, the statement was made at the Conservative party conference in the

autumn. One assumes that, if the Prime Minister makes a statement on a new policy at the party conference, he has already done some of the work on it, or some of it has been done on his behalf. Perhaps that is too generous an assumption. The work had not been done at all. The speech was the beginning of the idea. Surely the Government could put some more expedition into the consultation, so that, by the time the Bill has reported, we know what system we are trying to plug the mechanism into.
If we do not get it right, some rather disturbing possibilities could arise, of which we must take account when considering a constitutional Bill. For example, the Security Service could undertake a task because it had a different order of priorities from the police. It could undertake a task because it believed that the Hampshire police were not according sufficient priority to certain aspects of organised crime in their area, and could therefore carry out investigations. I do not think that that is what the Home Secretary envisages, but the Bill leaves that possibility open.
Indeed, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, the Home Secretary could decide, because he was under political pressure and was being challenged about something going on in Merseyside, to tell the Security Service that it ought to investigate something to which he thought the Merseyside police were not giving sufficient attention. Again, I do not think that that is what the Home Secretary is telling us he wants to do. Why write a Bill that is open to such interpretation?
The issue of warrants has also been left to be resolved later. The Home Secretary referred to it, and said quite rightly that he was not satisfied with the present arrangements concerning the police and wanted to improve them. It is notable to those of us with civil liberties concerns that the Security Service system for the approval of warrants is better than the police system. The Security Service system requires specific authorisation by Ministers, and is subject to quite a, thorough review procedure. We have certainly had the opportunity to ask the judges who undertake it questions about how it is carried out.
In the police forces, the chief constable makes arrangements for the approval of intervention on property—the difference does not apply to communications. The system is not ideal for police officers, because they are open to action for civil trespass; there are all sorts of problems with it.
If the two systems run side by side, it will be extremely confusing and would open up the possibility that, in a joint operation, Security Service personnel could say to the police, "Look, our warrant procedure is terribly cumbersome. Let us do it on one of your warrants. You have only to ask the chief constable. Let us not bother with our rigmarole of going to the Home Secretary." The purpose of the warrant system would be defeated in order to get on with something that the Security Service felt was urgent. Such confusion should not be left in the drafting and passing of new legislation.
If the police are not told about a warrant issued to the Security Service in respect of their area, ridiculous possibilities arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) mentioned them to me earlier.
Let us say that a Security Service operative, acting on a Home Office warrant, is seen by a next-door neighbour, who rings the police. The police could come dashing in


to arrest the Security Service personnel, totally unaware that the operation is supposedly in support of them. It must be co-ordinated. I think that most chief constables would expect to know if an operation was taking place in their area, and it is reasonable that they should know, and be able to make the appropriate arrangements. If they are to do their jobs properly, they should be given that opportunity.
We have not quite resolved the danger of divided accountability, although it is difficult to resolve. The Security Service is directly responsible to the Home Secretary for its actions and the police are responsible to their local police authority, but there are no arrangements in the Bill to resolve that discrepancy.
It is not clear to whom the public would complain. If an operation were carried out in support of the police in the pursuit of organised crime and a member of the public was affected because it went wrong, would they complain to the Police Complaints Authority, or to the Security Commission?
We also have a problem about the definition of organised crime. Some adverse comment was made about the use of "organised" in the definition. I have forgotten which Government Member was complaining about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister."] I must therefore draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, when the Prime Minister announced the proposal to the Conservative party conference, it was intended to tackle organised crime. That was what the Prime Minister said. He talked about a problem with organised crime with which the security services could help. We cannot now say that "organised crime" are unhelpful words to use in this context. To tackle it was the whole purpose of the exercise.
Organised crime can be committed at any one of a number of levels. A gang of kids raiding several sweetshops is an organised crime, but not what we would consider serious. Some serious crimes are not highly organised, such as murders and sex offences, as hon. Members have said, but are very serious. Such crimes do not have the element of organisation which the Security Service can help tackle. Indeed, that led the Committee to conclude that the Bill should deal with serious organised crime—that is what we are talking about.
I must also mention the problem of giving evidence before the courts. It relates not only to the fact that Security Service officers would, in some cases, have to appear, yet their identity be concealed, because otherwise the rest of their work would be impaired, but to the fact that the Security Service is not geared to the preparation of cases to bring before courts as the police are. That emphasises that the added value that the Security Service can bring into crime detection and prevention is in the analysis, and, to some extent, the gathering, of information from that analysis. It will need the police to ensure that a case is properly prepared to bring before courts and put to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Intelligence and Security Committee report comments quite strongly on a number of the points that I have mentioned. It is a unanimous report.
The Home Secretary paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for his work on that Committee. I happily endorse that tribute. A truly valuable endorsement, however, would be to have the Committee's recommendations properly dealt with in the Standing Committee. It would be an empty tribute if all

the advice of the Intelligence and Security Committee is ignored. Although the Bill and the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee were published on the same day, the Committee considered the possibility that the Bill would appear in its present form. It was alarmed by that, and set out a number of ways in which the Bill could address those issues which must be considered.
There has been rather too much pressure to go ahead with one part of the jigsaw before the other pieces have been put in place. It is not too late to remedy that oversight. It could be done in the Standing Committee, particularly if the Home Secretary is prepared to ensure that we enact what he told the House today. The timetable, however, has been determined a bit too much by party conferences and imminent elections and things of that kind. As a result, confusion has arisen, which runs the risk of undermining the police rather than assisting them.
When the proposals were announced at the Conservative party conference, I was struck by the idea that, had they been announced in the House, answers would have had to be prepared for questions such as: is the national squad for the whole United Kingdom or is it just for England; and will the squad be linked with the NCIS or will there be two separate bodies? Consideration of the Bill will be difficult, because those questions are still unresolved, which shows that things have been put in the wrong order.
It is not too late to put matters right. We should be quite clear, however, that the legislation could—if we get it right—enable the Security Service to give limited but valuable assistance to the police in analysing criminal gangs in order to track them down, bring some of them to justice and prevent some serious crimes. The legislation will not be the revolution we should love to have—one which drastically reduces serious crime. If we get the legislation wrong, we will do no service to the police or to the Security Service.

Mr. Rupert Allason: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Security Service and its personnel? I should also like to recall the tragic loss of five members of the Security Service who died in the Chinook helicopter crash. That was the largest disaster that has ever befallen the Security Service in the first or second world wars and at any time in the post-war era. It was a reminder of the risk that people who work in the Security Service must face daily. Anybody with any experience of terrorism or the murky world of intelligence and counter-intelligence is aware of the serious pitfalls that exist.
I should also like to pay tribute to the retiring Director-General of the Security Service. She has done more than most people to try to foster a sense of responsibility in the media in their dealings with the work of the Security Service. She has presented herself and her organisation in a rational and coherent fashion. It is because of her and her recently retired legal adviser, David Bickford, that Opposition Members, who for some years expressed serious concerns about the kind of people who work in the Security Service, have had an opportunity to meet those people and to discuss relevant topics and issues with them. They, too, now recognise the important work carried out by the service and the


dedication of the individuals involved. The people who work for the service are not right-wing fanatics. They are not all bugging and burgling their way across London, as was alleged by Peter Wright and subsequently disproved.
In paying tribute to the Security Service, we should take care not to put it on a pedestal. The service is no panacea to the troubles that have befallen our country—the scale of the threat to the country cannot be underestimated. All hon. Members have received letters such as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). People have genuine concerns about their communities, in which they see their neighbourhoods, friends and families crumbling because of the invidious influence of the drug pushers.
The media coverage during the past four or five weeks has demonstrated time and again how perfectly ordinary and reasonable families with good standards and backgrounds can be terribly undermined by the effect of drugs on youngsters. Drug dealers operate in neighbourhoods in Liverpool, Bristol and elsewhere, even in my own constituency of Torbay. The police sometimes feel powerless to enter some properties and consider that they do not have the resources to maintain the kind of sophisticated surveillance they think might enable them to deal with the drug barons. Picking up the dealers on the street is one way to deal with the drug problem, but the key has to be long-term intelligence collection and long-term surveillance in order finally to get to the drug kingpins.
The threat from organised crime is well established, although it can of course be exaggerated. The Home Affairs Select Committee has done a commendable job in studying the true scale of the problem. We are all aware—particularly those who have been involved in studying the problem in the United States and the work of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency—that in the United States an entire civilisation is at risk from the drug pedlars. That country is being eaten alive by the people who prey off the dependency and weakness of others.
The United Kingdom has a pretty good record in dealing with drug smugglers. When it comes to money laundering, the British Secret Intelligence Service is regarded as one of the world's experts in the monitoring, identification and prevention of that activity, which is of course directly allied to drug smuggling.
There is widespread acceptance that the British authorities have been outmanoeuvred and outgunned for a long period not only by organised crime but by small gangs of individuals. The police find it difficult to cope with them because there are 43 different police forces with 43 different police computer systems, none of which is compatible with each other. That is why there is talk now of a national police force.
Crime is extremely mobile, and that was part of the incentive for creating regional crime squads. We are talking now about a national crime squad. When the suggestion was made that there should be the equivalent of a national detective service—the equivalent perhaps of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States—there were serious concerns about having a national police structure, particularly from some of the far-flung regional police forces and the police committees. We have got over that hurdle.
I welcome the proposition for a national DNA register and especially the way in which special branch has been at the forefront of co-ordinating and liaising with separate police forces. That is the way forward. Harnessing that technology will also provide police with an opportunity to fight crime. I believe that the national DNA register may make the crime of rape one of the most easily detectable in the next century, and I welcome that.

Mr. Robathan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as I understand it, 170 cases are already being pursued because the DNA register has produced a match?

Mr. Allason: I welcome the way in which modern technology can be harnessed in support of the community to prevent, deter and detect crime. Indeed, I shall go further and say that I would be pleased to see a national paedophile register. There are also many other areas in which crime could be tackled on a national basis.
We all understand the scale of the threat to this country, but the question before us today has nothing to do with that scale. The question is whether a particular very small organisation that has been in existence since 1909, with a fascinating history, is the appropriate organisation to deal with crime on that scale.
First, I ask: what is the catalyst, the Incentive, for the Bill? I recall asking in 1989 what the catalyst was for the Security Service Bill, as it then was. The question was shrugged off, and it was suggested to me that it was unpatriotic to inquire why a particular Bill should be presented.
An Opposition Member suggested, cynically I thought, that an attempt was being made to outmanoeuvre the provisions of an anticipated judgment in the European Court of Human Rights. I must admit that that Member turned out to be absolutely correct. The United Kingdom was under an obligation to introduce the accountability and protection introduced by the Security Service Act in November 1989.
We should be worried about the danger of making a virtue of a necessity, and that is where the concern, on which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has already touched, lies. What precisely has driven this particular legislation at this particular time?
Certainly the provisionals are not out of business in Northern Ireland. The Irish National Liberation Army remains a potent threat, as do the loyalist paramilitaries. There also certainly remains a threat from eastern Europe. Anybody concerned about the proliferation of chemical, biological, bacteriological and nuclear weapons must be worried.
It is not unreasonable that, as Mrs. Rimington has stated, the Security Service should flex its muscles and analytical skills in that context. If the prospects of Islamic fundamentalism, of terrorism, of nuclear components falling into the wrong hands and of people being able to manufacture viable nuclear devices do not fall into the category of a serious threat to the realm, I do not know what does.
I supported the extension of the Security Service's power into counter-proliferation, but I had considerable reservations when it was proposed to extend its power into counter-terrorism. I shall explain to the House in a moment why I had those reservations.
The fact is that in the current climate the Security Service has, in a sense, run out of things to do. There is, thank God, a ceasefire in Northern Ireland, and there is a


skill deficit in the eastern bloc countries that posed a threat to this nation in the past. To that extent, the Security Service has to deal with a slight gap.
Over the years, the service has built up extraordinary skills in surveillance and monitoring, and in the collection, collation and distribution of intelligence. Nobody who has studied the service can doubt the tremendous skills available to it. The surveillance skills are remarkable. It should not be forgotten that the terrorist provisionals who went down to Gibraltar were under constant surveillance by the Security Service.
We are talking about dedicated men and women who operate in all sorts of environments and who are literally never noticed. Their operations are not like an episode of "The Bill", with a detective sergeant pushing a camera out of a window at something across the street. The skills that the Security Service can deploy are extraordinarily sophisticated.
Of course it is a tremendous waste for those skills to lie idle for any period; so there is certainly a case for what within the intelligence community is called "taking in washing". That is, in order to retain the surveillance skills and the technology within a closed, classified and controlled environment, the service can be given tasks and then report to a particular police agency or organisation, providing it with an enormous dossier on an individual target. I am well aware of the work that the Security Service could do in the way of taking in washing.
I want to say something about the way in which the Security Service has presented its case in connection with the Bill. I am concerned about the public relations campaign that has been mounted to allow it to extend its role. The speed has been astonishing.
On 13 October the Prime Minister announced that the role of the Security Service would be extended. The Bill was, I believe, published on the day the House rose for the Christmas recess—a slightly odd time for Members of Parliament wanting to complete their Christmas shopping to have to engage with the minutiae of important and serious legislation. To schedule the Second Reading for the day after the House returns from the recess also shows undue haste, especially as the Government response to the Select Committee report was published only Yesterday.
In my judgment, we have had a very short time in which to study the Government's response, to look into the detail of the Bill and to try to get advice. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has taken evidence on the Bill from an undisclosed number of people, but I am afraid that Back Benchers have not had the same opportunity to talk to those who may have an expert opinion on the subject.
The haste with which the Bill has been presented to the House gives me some cause for concern. The campaign has certainly been well orchestrated. The Security Service even appointed a director of corporate affairs to liaise with Whitehall and promote the proposition that the service should go beyond taking in washing.
Is the Bill the consequence of a direct threat to the realm from organised crime, or has it appeared because the Security Service is seeking a role in a changing world? That is one of the issues that the House will have to address.
It is suggested that the Security Service has special analytical skills that it can devote to organised crime, so as to "crack it". The analytical skills of the Security Service

relate first to the collection and collation of intelligence. Ninety per cent. of this work is in the development of individual, personal and subject files, which are very detailed, comprehensive and bureaucratic. They are not always accurate but, by and large, they are pretty good. The files are supported by the work of the special branches across the provinces. The analytical skills which Mrs. Rimington described extend to the other activities in which the Security Service indulges in order to be able to create those files, including the interception of mail and other communications and the running of agents.
Here we reach the first hint of concern, because the Security Service is certainly skilled at running agents. The skills of an agent handler are particularly difficult, and are acquired only after a long period. But the House must not forget that the business of running agents is also conducted by detectives, who run informants, and by special branch officers, who operate to very specific Home Office guidelines. So I would ask the Minister whether the Home Office guidelines that apply to the running of informants will be extended to deal with the way in which the Security Service might run agents to deal with organised crime.
I shall now refer to the Security Service itself, and whether the service is the organisation best suited to take on organised crime. Within the service, there is by no means a unanimous view on this subject. There is certainly a widespread belief that the organisation is in some difficulty because of the lack of a perceived threat from the traditional areas of responsibility of the Security Service.
With the indulgence of the House, I shall briefly describe the background of the Security Service, because it has not changed considerably in all the years it has existed since 1909. There have been two dramatic changes—one in 1989, and the other which is being contemplated today. Back in 1883, the Fenian bomb outrages in London prompted the creation of what was then known as the Irish special branch. Metropolitan police detectives—some with the skill of Gaelic—were collected together to fight the manifestation of Irish nationalism on our streets. Curiously, the newspaper headlines of 1883 were remarkably similar to those of 1993, with bomb outrages in Whitehall, and so on.
The special branch was created for the single purpose of fighting the manifestation of Irish nationalism but, because of a specific case involving the Globe newspaper, it went on to deal with official secrets. Official secrets legislation was passed in 1889 as a consequence of the disclosure of secrets in the Globe. It turned out that, despite the protests of the Foreign Secretary of the time, the details of the Anglo-Russian treaty produced in the newspaper were entirely correct. An attempt was made to investigate the source of the leak to the Globe, and it turned out that a journalist was involved.
Happily, at that time the Foreign Office employed fewer than 100 people, some of them on a part-time basis. One of those employees turned out to be journalist, and he was charged under the terms of the Larceny Act because it was believed that he had stolen a copy of the treaty. I know about this case only because my great-great-great uncle was the prosecuting counsel, and he entirely screwed it up. The Larceny Act depended on the theft of an actual item, and the gentleman who had "stolen" the text of the Anglo-Russian treaty turned out to have a photographic memory—he had stolen nothing.
The case was dismissed, and my great-great-great uncle, Sir Harry Poland, did not survive as a Treasury counsel for very much longer. As a consequence of that case, legislation on official secrets came before the House. In 1914, defence of the realm legislation was introduced to deal with German espionage and the perceived threat therefrom. After the first world war, two further official secrets measures were introduced to deal with the interception of communications.
Since 1909, when it came into existence under the leadership of Major-General Sir Vernon Kell, the Security Service has had roles in counter-espionage, counter-sabotage and counter-subversion. That continued through the second world war and on to the introduction of positive vetting in 1950, when a Labour Administration realised that there was a serious threat to this country of penetration of the establishment by communists and others who did not subscribe to a parliamentary system of government. That change was not dramatic, because it was covered by the category of counter-subversion.
It was only the desire of the Security Service to extend its role into counter-terrorism in very recent years that made a difference. This was really the first time that the Security Service had started to get involved in the criminal justice system. I opposed that change, because I believe that a terrorist who commits homicide is guilty of murder. It is not a political crime, and I believe such cases should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. The moment one makes a special case for those people, one is in danger of undermining the validity of their convictions.
I have always wanted the police to continue their principal role in counter-terrorism. Even when the Security Service was introduced into Northern Ireland, the police always had the prime responsibility for investigating terrorism and conducting counter-terrorism operations. The reason for that was that the Security Service has always been reluctant to be accused of acting like the Gestapo. People who lived through the second world war remember the tactics adopted by the Gestapo and the secret police in totalitarian countries. They will also recall the way in which the tribunals operated in this country against suspected enemy aliens who were due for internment under the provisions of section 18(b) of the defence of the realm legislation. That was an unhappy period in our history, and there is still concern—as there was then—that the Security Service should never be tarred with the accusation that it had become secret police.
I recall being told that one of the ambitions of intelligence officers was to avoid being engaged in work that would bring to them that kind of opprobrium, as it is often forgotten that the Security Service can operate only with the support of the community. Running a surveillance operation means going to private householders, asking for their support and for facilities and explaining a part of what the objective of the operation is. Therefore, Security Service officers have been very careful in the past to avoid getting involved in the spectacle of giving evidence behind screens or of producing witnesses who cannot be properly cross-examined and whose antecedents are unknown.
Security Service officers have been perfectly prepared to acquire and supply intelligence to the police, who have found it extremely useful, but they have always tried to

avoid giving evidence in court. The reason for that is simply that, like special branch officers, they are not very good at it. They have not been trained in the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Every detective in this country has served as a police officer and carries the same warrant card as the ordinary bobby on the beat. He is subject to the same accountability. A complaint against a police officer is dealt with in precisely the same way whether he is a member of CID or the uniformed branch. That is an enormous and important protection to the community.
In terms of efficiency and getting convictions in court, I have severe reservations about deploying officers of the Security Service. They start from a very low base. They will be on a high learning curve in taking in the rules of evidence, the rules of taking statements under judges' rules cautions and the rest. If they do not do so, defence counsel will have a field day.
Although I recognise that the Security Service may have a role in "taking in washing"—it certainly has a role in counter-proliferation—I am concerned about the balance that is being struck between civil liberties and the correct demands of the community to protection from drug dealers and organised crime
.
The Security Service is a unique organisation within the British constitution. It is self-tasking. The director-general makes up his or her mind about what investigations the service should conduct. It has never in its history taken guidance from politicians about whom it should monitor and watch, whose bank account it should investigate. I believe that that is entirely right and proper. The tradition has always been that, for example, if a Member of Parliament's telephone is to be the subject of a surveillance warrant, the warrant should certainly be approved by the Prime Minister. The Security Service certainly must have the accountability that justifies its extraordinary degree of independence which is unique within the British government system.
I now turn briefly to the criminal justice system. There is a case for the Security Service to "take in washing", but an awful lot of organisations already in existence deal with the drugs problem and organised crime—Customs and Excise, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, to name but a few. They have skill in surveillance and have developed technology of clandestine monitoring. If one intends to add money to the activity, why not give it directly to those organisations instead of to the Security Service?
The Security Service may have a role to play, but I submit that we must be very careful when we balance these issues. In recent months, we have seen some worrying cases. Brian Nelson in Northern Ireland, who was an intelligence source, is now serving a long prison sentence even though his handler described him as the bravest man he had ever met and said that he was responsible for saving many lives.
Let us consider, as Lord Justice Scott is doing, the case of Paul Henderson and Paul Grecian, suppliers of intelligence to both the SIS and MI5. When they attempted to protest their innocence, they were the subject of public interest immunity certificates which looked likely at one stage to deny them their principal defence that they had been working in league with the security agencies.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will be aware that a public interest immunity certificate does not exclude


evidence from proceedings but simply places the matter before the judge, who decides whether the evidence in question is admissible.

Mr. Allason: I only wish that that were the case. I am confident that after the Matrix Churchill report comes out, it will be, but I remind my hon. Friend that a Minister had severe reservations about signing one of the certificates in that case and asked that those reservations be passed on to the judge. They were not passed on. The prosecuting counsel subsequently expressed his dismay at not even knowing that a Minister had had severe reservations.
I recognise that the public interest immunity certificate is a useful tool for the protection of informants, the Security Service, the police, the authorities in Northern Ireland and the Inland Revenue and they have often been usefully deployed, but there are cases in which people have had their defence inhibited by the use of the certificates and they have felt that they have had a raw deal. There are several cases, which I will not go into now, in which defendants have been convicted. Instead of accepting their conviction and doing their bird, the fact that a secret arm of government has interfered in the investigation or the prosecution leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, several concerns must be dealt with before the Bill can go any further. The tasking, command, integration and accountability of the Security Service have all been raised by my right hon. Friend. I have heard little from the Government today to answer any of those concerns, but I hope that when the Minister of State, Home Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—replies to the debate he will be able to respond to them.
I also hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to disclose some of the agreements that he mentioned on the radio this morning with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the police. As far as I know, they have never been disclosed. They are not in the Library. If the House is to give a fair wind to the Bill, the integration that has been described should be disclosed to the House so that we can satisfy ourselves that the balance between the protection of the community and the protection of defendants accused of serious crimes is absolutely right. If we get it wrong, we will not have another bite at this particular cherry. Therefore, I urge caution on the House. By all means send the Bill up into Committee. I hope that the Committee will scrutinise the legislation line by line. If we do not, we may well live to regret it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call the next Member, let me say that one Opposition Member took much more than 30 minutes and a Conservative Back-Bencher took a great deal more than 30 minutes. There is a great deal of interest in the Bill. I cannot impose a 10-minute limit, but I appeal to hon. Members to behave in such a way that I am able to call them all.

Mr. David Winnick: There is undoubtedly more agreement between the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and me tonight than there was when he opposed my ten-minute Bill on trade union rights at GCHQ which I introduced on 25 January 1994, the

10th anniversary of the ban. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for opposing me because as a result of his opposition we won the vote, for what that is worth.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Committee proceedings on the Bill. I hope that I am not hopelessly destroying his chances of being chosen to serve on the Committee when I say that I trust that he will be one of the Conservative members of the Committee. I have no hesitation in saying that, because the last time that we discussed security matters the hon. Gentleman was not chosen and I for one genuinely regretted that fact—I am sure that I was not the only Labour Member to do so. He undoubtedly had an input to make and could not do so because he was not chosen.
I am not necessarily opposed to the measure, although I certainly have a number of reservations and doubts about it, as do many hon. Members, not least on the grounds of accountability. During debates on the intelligence services, I have often said that, even if the curse of terrorism were absent—for 25 years it was far from absent when the IRA and other paramilitaries conducted their terrorist operations—there would undoubtedly be justification for an organisation such as MI5, or whatever it would tend to be called. I am not aware of any democracy, let alone dictatorship, that does not have some form of security organisation. It would be very odd if a democracy did not give itself such protection.
I hope that my use of the past tense will be justified, but I was critical of the way in which MI5 gave the impression that too many of its officials were not merely right wing—they have as much right to be right wing as left wing—but very right wing indeed. Frankly, although employed by an organisation whose task, first and foremost, is the defence of parliamentary democracy, I would question whether those officials—I trust that they were a small minority—had any real confidence in parliamentary democracy. I do not want to keep on about Peter Wright, but he is as good an example as any of someone whom I would certainly not accept had any strong feelings about parliamentary democracy—certainly not the sort of feelings that we have.
As for the present, I hope that those way-out elements are absent from the organisation with which we are dealing tonight. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that there are far more Conservative voters among the senior ranks in MI5 and MI6 than non-Conservative voters and I have long held that view, but their politics are certainly a matter for themselves.
I accept that it might be useful for MI5 to help in the detection and prevention of serious crime. Like a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I believe that it is important for the description "serious crime" to be more tightly drawn and I hope that the Minister will accept that. I am sure that it will be necessary for a number of amendments to be tabled in Committee—some probing and some not—because of those two words.
The Home Secretary might be right to argue that MI5 can deal more effectively with such criminality as he described on occasions than the police acting on their own. I do not underestimate the difficulties and dangers of criminality, certainly as far as the organised drug trade is concerned and because so many young people are involved in drugs and other problems that can endanger their lives. Of course, those are serious problems, but is it really necessary for MI5


to come in on the act? Would it not be more appropriate for the police to act on their own or with other law enforcement agencies as they do at present?
The fact that problems would arise during court cases has been mentioned. Security Service personnel can give evidence in court on an anonymous basis. Will it be possible for such officers to be cross-examined on their evidence? The position of the police is well regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—a necessary Act, which laid down clearly the ways in which the police had to act as regards powers of stop and search, entry and seizure, arrest and detention. Moreover, their powers are detailed in the codes of practice through which the Act operates, which all adds up to some control and accountability—control and accountability to which MI5 will not be subject.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also established the Police Complaints Authority. How much more controversial would controversial cases be—the police have been involved in such cases, for example with the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so forth—if MI5 played a role, especially if they were criminal and not simply terrorist cases? We must be very careful and clear. That is why the Committee stage is of such importance with a measure of this type. The wording will have to be more tightly drawn. We do not want to get ourselves into a situation that we will later regret.
Will the Security Service be able to take action to deal with serious crime when it has not been requested to do so by the police and other enforcement agencies? What are the views of the police in the matter? That question has been very much in our minds and has been touched on in the debate. For all that I know, the police may be very enthusiastic and may have been pressing the Home Secretary to give the security services such powers. There are rumours, on the other hand, that the police are not altogether happy, but have not gone public. We are entitled to know their position and, in particular, that of the Metropolitan police. Do they believe that they will be substantially assisted by the security services? Surely we do not want sharp rivalry between the police force and the Security Service. That would not be desirable and nor would it do much to deal with serious crime.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it will be possible for MI5 to carry out such activities, where it believes that that is necessary, without the police being notified—acting on its own, without the sort of co-ordination that would exist in most cases, I assume, between the police and the security services.
Those are the sort of questions that we need to probe in Committee and on Report. I will not vote against the Bill tonight, but while I accept that there might be a case for MI5 having those additional powers, because of all my doubts and reservations I am clear in my mind that the case for proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of MI5 is strengthened. I have long argued that case. It is not some issue that I have taken up recently, as I argued it in the 1980s and before. I argued that, as in other democracies in the western world, such as the United States, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, MI5 should receive some parliamentary scrutiny.
I accept that the Government have taken a modest step in that direction—I was a member of the Standing Committee on the appropriate Bill—by setting up the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it does not satisfy the need for proper parliamentary accountability.
When the likes of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the rest have raised the issue in the past, the Government's response was clear. They said that such accountability was not necessary and that the security services were subject to ministerial control. They said that we had no justification for raising such issues. Although it was not said openly, they hinted that we were just causing trouble. It is interesting to note that, although that was the argument many years ago, it was not quite the argument when the Government conceded that there was a case for some scrutiny—hence the reason for setting up the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government have accepted, albeit to a limited extent, the need for Parliament or, at least, parliamentarians to look into the work of the security services.
I have never argued that proper parliamentary scrutiny should necessarily operate in exactly the same way as the work of other Select Committees. I do not suggest for a moment that the Select Committee should investigate future operations, or should necessarily investigate those that have already taken place. I do, however, believe that there is a case for parliamentary scrutiny that does not currently exist.
Hon. Members may ask what is wrong with the existing Committee. For one thing, it does not report to Parliament. Unlike other Select Committees, it is not accountable to the House of Commons; it is accountable to the Prime Minister, to whom it reports annually. The Prime Minister decides whether the report, or part of it, should be deleted: he judges whether the report should be submitted to the House in its current form, or in a different form. I do not consider that to be parliamentary scrutiny as such.
Moreover, the Committee does not sit in a parliamentary building. I do not understand that. Other Committees sit upstairs in private, and in many instances—with perfect justification—a policeman is present, either outside or inside the room.

Mr. Stephen: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard of the sophisticated eavesdropping devices that exist nowadays?

Mr. Winnick: That would have to be dealt with by the House of Commons authorities. But given that the Committee sits in the Cabinet Office, how do we know that such modern techniques do not operate there? How do we know that they do not operate in the Cabinet? In fact, we are not particularly worried about that, as we receive pretty full reports of what happens in Cabinet meetings in any event.
Moreover, the Committee is not serviced by any of the Clerks of the House. I understand that, before a clerk is appointed, the application is scrutinised by the security services. That may be justified. The fact remains, however, that this Committee is serviced by the Cabinet Office, and that in itself constitutes an insult to the House of Commons.
I shall continue to press the case for parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the security services. I am sure that I shall not be alone in the parliamentary Labour party in so doing. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that, when we are allowed the scrutiny that I have long


advocated, many hon. Members—even Conservative Members—will suggest that it should be abandoned. We must try to function in this respect as a mature democracy, as other countries have. I feel that the Bill is deficient in that important respect, among others.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I am no expert on the security services, and I suspect that the same applies to most other hon. Members; but I recognise an expert when I see one. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), whose speech—although somewhat overlong—displayed rare balance and expertise. If parliamentary scrutiny is to mean anything, there is every reason for my hon. Friend to play a prominent and vociferous part as a member of the Standing Committee.
Despite my lack of expertise, I can say two things. First, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke of the greater openness that now prevails. That is illustrated by the fact that, 10 years ago, we probably would not have been debating the security services in the Chamber. Indeed, I understand that the Government did not even publicly recognise their existence. The hon. Member for Walsall, North may have reservations about whether the Select Committee should report to the Prime Minister rather than the House, but I feel that the advances made in 1989, when the security services were put on a statutory footing, and in 1994, when parliamentary oversight was improved, represent real developments in the accountability of the services—as is appropriate in a healthy democratic system. Along with others, I pay tribute to the work of Stella Rimington, the present director-general.
Secondly, I welcome any legislative or, indeed, other action to combat the curse of serious crime. I profoundly agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when he spoke of the large and growing menace of organised crime. While I may not be an expert on the security services, I believe that we are probably all near-experts on the appalling damage that such crime can do to our constituents. There is the carnage caused by drugs; there are immigration rackets, which are bad not only for race relations but for those who are duped by such organised crime when they come to this country. Currency scams undermine our economic structure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) described Madras as the counterfeit currency capital of the world, and I am sure that what can be done with British visas can also be done with British currency. Organised crime can have appalling effects, especially in an increasingly technological age.
Like other hon. Members, I recognise that intelligence is crucial to the combating of organised crime. Along with Stella Rimington, whose 1994 Dimbleby lecture has already been mentioned, I appreciate that the reduction in resources devoted by the security services to espionage—and, happily and, we hope, permanently, the reduction in resources to combat terrorism following the ceasefires in Northern Ireland over the past year and a half—mean that more resources and expertise can be diverted to support law and order. That is why I consider it sensible to amend the 1989 Act to widen the remit of the security services beyond the combating of espionage, terrorism and sabotage and the safeguarding of economic well-being—

although, as I have said, it could be argued that the services now have a legitimate interest in the prevention and detection of organised crime, as that endangers our economic well-being.
I also support clause 2, which would amend the Intelligence Services Act 1994, giving the Security Service an opportunity to apply for warrants to investigate crime in a domestic context. It seems curious that other services are allowed to apply for warrants but not on a domestic scale. If we want to operate effectively against organised and other crime, our security services must be able to operate in the country of origin.
I recognise the importance of co-ordinating our activities against the monster of organised crime. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said that there were £500 million worth of drugs seizures last year, £176 million of which were made by regional crime squads. That is a drop in the ocean given the total trade in drugs, so it is important to co-ordinate organisations such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service and encourage further co-ordination through the national crime squad, once it is up and running, and the Home Office directorate of organised and international crime. My only reservation is that we should not think that a vast army will go into battle against organised crime. I understand from the Library's briefing that the Security Service's total resources are only £150 million a year and the number of staff employed in the general intelligence group is just 340. As those are not all operatives and only a proportion of them will be able to take up their new responsibilities, we should not expect miracles from them in a short time, even on a laundering or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, "washing" basis.
Although I agree with the principles of the Bill, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North and those hon. Members who have tabled an amendment tonight about civil freedoms. It would be ironic if a democracy set up a service to protect itself but put in place a system that oppressed its people. As vice-chairman of the parliamentary human rights group, I do not want some of the abuses that exist in other countries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater documented, mistakenly imported into the United Kingdom.
The two important issues are, first, accountability of the security services and, secondly, their relationship with the law enforcement agencies. I, too, am concerned about the relatively loose definition of "serious crime". Clause 2(3B) mentions "violence" and "substantial financial gain", but "substantial" is not an exact word. It also says:
a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
which can be interpreted as widely or narrowly as one would want. Although we want to give the intelligence services the maximum range possible to help them fight organised crime, we must tighten up that definition in Standing Committee.
The present system of accountability, with two tribunals for the security services and two commissioners, works well. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, I am slightly worried that definitive figures—somebody mentioned 54—for the number of complaints made against the security services are not released. The Home Office should see whether a more open regime could be introduced.
Like other hon. Members, I should like the protections which the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at present provides to the public to apply to intelligence officers who are called on to give evidence in Crown courts in cases of organised crime. That matter has not been carefully thought through. I understand that this is a framework document that does not deal with detail, but unless the detail is adequately scrutinised and assurances are given in Standing Committee, the potential for abuse will remain.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the relationship between the secret services and the law and order forces. It is inevitable that their paths will cross. The same trends that drive international terrorism in terms of technology and speedier travel drive international crime. We heard how the two intermingle in many parts of the world, including Britain. The security services used to have primacy over the police, but where crime and terrorism are virtually synonymous, it may be difficult to establish lines of accountability between the police and the security services, especially, as the Intelligence and Security Committee said, given that the security services are "self-tasking" and set their own priorities. The Committee took up that matter in its latest report and said:
In so far as the Service is to be given a new role in countering 'conventional' criminal activity, the legislation needs to make very clear that it will be working in support of the law enforcement organisations. Accountability of issues will also need to be resolved, as will the differing systems under which authorisation is given for the interception of communications and for the entry on, or interference with, property.
I happen to agree with what Lord Cuckney said in the House of Lords on Second Reading of the Bill. He said that, although those problems look mountainous and sinister now, they will pale into proportion once the police and security services can work together to combat organised crime. He said that their different functions will prove complementary in their approach to common problems. Although I agree that that will happen, we cannot take it for granted; hence the reservations that I have expressed.
I welcome the Bill, which will help us to advance in our fight against the menace of organised crime.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Like the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I pay tribute to the Security Service, not because I have an intimate knowledge of its operations, but because the freer and more open a society becomes the more susceptible it is to subversive activity and terrorism, so one needs the protection of such a service. On one of the media channels this morning, somebody said that we do not really need such organisations. That is absurd.
I want, in a short speech, to discuss accountability and the relative powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies. With the collapse of the eastern bloc and communism, and the prolonged peace in Northern Ireland, many skilled people in the Security Service must either be made redundant or be redeployed. It is as simple as that.
We have, however, had the rising threat of international drug trafficking and organised crime, which are areas on which the spare capacity might be refocused. Such areas of operation might seem ripe for harvesting, but concerns have been expressed by organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers. The notion of imposing new national structures on what is essentially local policing is found to be unacceptable. National co-ordination is viewed as acceptable by many senior police officers, but national operational units are not.
A balance has to be struck between the benefits of a coherent response to cross-border organised crime and the dangers of creating a readily available key to the control of the whole of the nation's police. For that reason, my local police force and its excellent chief constable, Tony Leonard, oppose the notion of any operational override of local policing via the head of the NCIS, given that that postholder answers directly to the national political office of Home Secretary. Likewise, I have always felt that any central role that draws together the activity of the regional crime squads should be one of co-ordination only and not an executive operation.
Concerns have also been expressed about the implications of the direct reporting by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the Home Secretary.
I recognise the skills and experience of the Security Service and readily acknowledge its excellence in counter-subversion and counter-espionage, but I am concerned about the narrowness of its abilities in comparison with the broader community-oriented and community-developed skills of local police forces. The narrowness is less important when the Security Service is engaged in its covert roles, but it will become a significant hindrance when its personnel are directed towards more general, mainstream police operations.
I am also concerned about the incomplete accountability of members of the Security Service, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) spoke about at some length. Members of the Security Service are not yet—quite understandably—touched by the ethos of public openness that police forces experience. Although there are some mechanisms in place to call the Security Service to account, I see little practical change. The culture of accountability has not manifested itself in the willingness of the Security Service to offer its structure, policies and accounting to public scrutiny, or in any of its members making themselves accessible to public debate, despite the efforts of the retiring director, Stella Rimington. The culture of accountability is much more widespread and pronounced in the police service.
I am also concerned that operatives within the Security Service, because of their necessary secrecy and because evidence gathering has been subordinate to intelligence gathering, will be inexperienced in many aspects of court procedure. That is not an insuperable problem, but there must be a substantial shift in cultural thinking as well as in attitudes to equality of opportunity and open management.
Substantial skills are vested in the Security Service and it has considerable resources—the equivalent of 12 senior investigating officers, some 200 surveillance operatives and about 2,000 staff in total. That is not insignificant. There is evidence that the Security Service is already positioning itself for its new role with preparatory structures. Moves are being made.
My wish is that the general public will be able to benefit from the talents of the Security Service in the wider fight against serious crime, in co-operation with local police. Together, they would offer the maximum threat to serious and organised crime. However, any such benefits must arise from a solution that meets the shorter-term aim of the need to fight and beat serious cross-border organised crime and which avoids jeopardising people's long-term liberty in other directions.
We need to take certain positions on the question of cross-border crime which should embrace the following broad policy elements. First, the House should recognise that a national and coherent response to serious, organised crime is necessary. Secondly, the active use of Security Service skills is desirable. Thirdly, we need to minimise the constitutional risk—and the link between the political position of Home Secretary and the National Criminal Intelligence Service should be severed. Fourthly, the historical link between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police should also be severed to reduce the constitutional risk further.
I make those points because, even if we do not amend the Bill in Committee, it will be useful to stimulate debate and to have statements from Ministers. Those points are important to the police service and many other people working in the crime agencies. Fifthly, the head of the NCIS, if permitted or encouraged to assume a direct operational role as opposed to a mere co-ordinating function, should be allowed to do so under a well-defined and tightly controlled remit. Finally, if the national co-ordinator of the regional crime squad is to have a direct operational role—in the NCIS or separately—the accountability structure should mirror the tripartite system.
So how do we achieve those aims? We need legislation to clarify the position of the Security Service and its accountability for its planning, resource management and actions. The Bill fails to do that, and the Committee stage will be an opportunity to amend it. Amendments will be needed to redefine the role and scope of the post of head of the NCIS, if the postholder were to assume authority for direct operations.
The provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 should be left undisturbed, as they define the Home Secretary's constitutional position vis-à-vis local police authorities and chief constables.
The head of the NCIS must be a police officer whose career has developed through accountability to local communities, so that he or she is sensitive to local needs and so that decision making in conjunction with local commanders works well. We need to have a very clear structure for the accountability of the head of the NCIS. He or she must be a person of such seniority of rank and experience that he or she commands authority and credibility in the management of a country-wide police operation. However, that person must be subordinate to locally appointed chief constables on matters of resources and delegated control. I also believe that the board of management must have the power to appoint and remove the head of the NCIS and that having CID experience is important. Deployment of Security Service personnel must be carefully defined. Many of those matters have not been scrutinised today, but I hope that they will be considered in Committee.
The Bill is important. It is a short Bill—it has only two main clauses—but it is revolutionary in terms of our structures. If we use the Security Service in the way set out in the Bill, there will be an impact on all the other enforcement agencies. The relationship between those agencies is not defined in the Bill. I very much hope that there will be a full debate on the matter because we are dealing with the interaction of powers, the scope of powers and accountability. That is as important as the direct accountability of the Security Service; that point has not been made today.
The principle of the Bill is right and I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that. However, there are gaping holes in it and in people's understanding of the ramifications of what will emerge from the relationship of the police with the other agencies.

Mr. David Ashby: I promise to speak for only 10 minutes, Madam Speaker. Even if I am halfway through my speech at 7.51 pm, I shall sit down. I shall keep that promise; I am most grateful that you have called me.
This has been a fascinating debate. We have heard a great deal about things that we have never heard about before. I had a friend whom I always suspected was in the Security Service. If I could only have talked to him—he is now dead—about all the washing, laundry and ironing that he had to do, I might have been able to have a rapport with him.
We have heard it all from the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). We now know that we are talking about one great big launderette in which half the machines are being used and half are not. The ones that are not being used are super-duper—the very latest model of washing machine. They are there to be used and I agree that we should not leave machinery lying idle.
The only problem is that, next door, there is an absolutely super, much bigger, launderette which is able to take laundry from all over the country and to wash it. It does not do the ironing, but it does do the cleaning and it delivers the laundry to others who do the ironing at the operative end. That launderette is the National Criminal Intelligence Service. We have two launderettes, one better than the other because it has super machinery.
The NCIS has one other thing—a dry cleaning service—because it operates overseas and gets information from other information-gathering organisations in Europe. It has that advantage. We now have to consider how we can place the half-used launderette alongside all the other launderettes and how we can get all the machines operating together. That will be the work of the Committee.
We must remember one thing. We shall have no success with the NCIS unless we leave it as an information-gathering organisation; it simply cannot be an operational arm. It would resist time and again any suggestion that it should have an operational arm and it has good reasons for holding that view. When one talks to similar organisations in other countries, as I have, one finds that they all say the same thing. They say, "We have to be information gatherers; we must not have an operational arm. We have to gather the information and let it out to others." We have had similar discussions about similar information-gathering arms, such as the Government communications headquarters.
We have also had talk about the interception of communications. I am not allowed to talk about that because the Interception of Communications Act 1985 says that one cannot say whether the interception of communications happens but, with a nod and a wink, it works extremely well because it is concerned with information gathering. Anyone who has had any contact with anything to do with the interception of communications knows how effective it is as a result of being information gathering. We have to be careful on this point.
I shall not repeat the speeches that have been made by others—I am watching the clock—because I agree with virtually everything that everyone has said. We shall have to be careful about the relationship between the agencies. We must think about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and we must think about other codes of conduct.
I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who went on a great deal about a balancing act. I am sure that new Labour does not believe that liberty and justice are balancing acts. One is not half guilty or half innocent; one is either guilty or innocent and there is no halfway measure. There is no halfway measure about human rights and there is no halfway measure about the right and wrong procedures or about what is oppressive and what is not. Those are absolutes and I do not believe that any balancing act is involved.
The House has misunderstood the reasons why some of the Bill's provisions are vague. They have to remain vague. We have been talking about organised crime. When it comes to court, it is just a crime. It may be the importation of a large amount of cannabis or heroin, but it is a crime and not a series of crimes. If there is a series of crimes, there is a series of different charges; it has to be that way.
When we talk about serious crime, we cannot talk about a figure or a limit. We may be talking about the importation of only £100-worth of heroin, which is the subject of the charge. However, in dealing with the case and in sentencing, the judge will know that importation is part of an action by a large section of organised crime and he will sentence accordingly, even though the case involves only £100 or £1,000-worth of heroin. We cannot really put limits on or try to define too much what we intend to do. If we do, we shall spoil what we want to achieve.
Organised crime is a term that we can use, but it is not a term that lawyers will be able to use. We all understand, however, what organised crime is. In the Home Affairs Committee, we have taken evidence and we understand some of the threats to this country from those who have organised crime in other countries and who wish to organise crime here. We are fortunate in that we have not had a great intrusion, although intrusion there is, but we must realise that it will come and we have to be prepared for it.
One area in which the Security Service will be able to help tremendously will be in investigating, alerting us to and finding out more about the threat from beyond our shores. It will have a role in looking at that threat in eastern European countries and in Russia, where the greatest threat is to be found. That organised crime has already penetrated other countries, such as America.
Somebody said earlier that the white slave trade does not exist any more; I can tell the House that it does. It exists in southern Spain, where all the prostitutes come from eastern Europe and are organised from eastern Europe. They are well organised in Spain, where there has been penetration of prostitution. I call that organised crime, and it is the sort of thing that we have to keep from our own shores.
Much of what has to be said has been said. We shall have to look carefully at the Bill to ensure that we are not throwing out the baby of traditional justice and liberty with the bath water. We must remember that we have a wonderful society here today and that we want to keep it like that. That is why we have to fight crime and why we must ensure that our standards remain the same. I support the Bill.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I shall not take long, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak and it is not pleasant to sit for a long time and not be called to speak.
I agree with those who urge caution in relation to the Bill. It is easy to be carried away regarding actions that we might want to take to fight crime. I should prefer to wait until about the time of Third Reading, when we shall be in a better position to judge, having read what emerges from Committee—which amendments are accepted and which rejected—before deciding irrevocably whether to accept the Bill. That leaves the question open, but I am one of those who would prefer to err on the side of caution than go over the top and live to regret it, as many people have done.
We cannot tackle crime in isolation. We must be tough on crime in the measures that we take, but other additional measures need to be taken, especially regarding inner cities. There is the issue of unemployment. I shall not digress, but one cannot fight crime with the Bill in isolation from the other problems that exist in the inner cities, where people are driven into crime, for a variety of reasons, to make money because they cannot make money legitimately. We must tackle those issues in addition to fighting organised crime.
Like the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) and several others, I am a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. We visited three countries and considered the various facets of organised crime. During those visits, we met some very senior police officers and Ministry officials and discussed a range of issues from wide-ranging matters such as organised crime to more specific matters, such as identity cards, and sought out opinions.
The Home Affairs Committee's recommendation should not be seized on by the Home Secretary as a way to legitimise the use of intelligence services to fight crime. That report stands on its own. We have not had much time to discuss and consider the Home Secretary's response to the report. Many hon. Members may believe that, because they have heard other hon. Members say that they have read the Home Affairs Select Committee's report and the Home Secretary's response, that is a good recommendation to support the Bill. I prefer to read what the Home Secretary said about the Home Affairs Committee's report before I make a final decision.
One must use several measures, not only the Bill, to fight organised crime. The funny thing about some of the information that we have about organised crime is that there does not appear at any stage to be a Mr. Big who may be targeted in this country. We know that there are organisations such as the Mafia and the Russian mafia abroad, which can be very elusive. People should bear that in mind. If the Home Secretary and his colleagues feel that the Bill will tackle organised crime with major success, I would urge caution, based on evidence from abroad. The organisers of organised crime are very elusive indeed. The Mafia certainly are. We know about other organisations such as the tongs and triads. One finds oneself in a very difficult maze when one tries to tackle those organizations.
The Home Secretary is taking considerable powers on himself, because at the moment the Asylum and Immigration Bill is passing through the House of Commons. About two years ago, the Home Secretary took some additional powers on himself when he produced the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. One wonders whether, with those two Bills, the Home Secretary has taken into consideration the issue of the safeguarding of civil rights in the fight against crime.
We should seriously question why one person, the Home Secretary, under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, can totally change the police policy of a given area, for example the west midlands. Powers are being given to the Home Secretary, which we must scrutinise carefully. He can, in certain ways, direct the intelligence services. We must ensure that the Home Secretary's powers are limited and that it is the police who control, for the purposes of fighting crime, the operations of the intelligence services, not the other way round.
We should think very deeply about those measures because they might, if not handled properly, have profound constitutional implications for the country. I am not one of those who would like a British Federal Bureau of Investigation, because the FBI's overall record is questionable. We must be extremely worried about civil rights and citizens' rights. We must also think very deeply about the way in which the police and the intelligence services work together and have control.
I was interested in the Home Secretary's opening statement, in which he referred to the fight against bullets and knives. If he was so worried about fighting the possession of knives and the issue of people being able to acquire knives, why has he taken about 18 months to act? Now he is using knives as a justification for using the intelligence services when he might pass an Act to deal with knives, instead of leaving that to a private Member's Bill some time this month.
Some of the knives that one sees, which can be sold to 12 and 14-year-old children without any control, are horrendous, to say the least. Many people experience that in the inner cities. We want to fight, not only against the bullet, but against knives and against other causes of crime.
I shall not repeat what honourable colleagues have said, much of which I agree with. I urge the House to approach the Bill very cautiously indeed.

Mr. Michael Stephen: For the past 30 years, the attitude of the British criminal justice system towards criminals has been one of resigned toleration.

Fortunately, we now have a Government, and especially a Home Secretary, who realise the terrible danger that criminals pose to our society and are determined to take the necessary measures to combat them.
The Home Secretary's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has given the police much wider powers to combat criminals than they had previously. My Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 has helped in dealing with bail bandits. However, organised crime today is reaching horrendous proportions and if we do not deal with it very firmly and quickly, we shall find ourselves in the dreadful position that pertains in some north and south American cities.
Of organised criminals, perhaps drug dealers are the worst. They are ruthless, they will stop at nothing, they use firearms and they present a very dangerous threat, even here in our own capital city. Organised crime includes counterfeiting. An especially dangerous form of organised crime is immigration racketeering, whereby unsuspecting people are brought to the United Kingdom from other countries by racketeers and end up in virtual slavery to those racketeers. I am very glad that the Home Secretary is taking measures under the Asylum and Immigration Bill to tackle them.
The Prime Minister is right to say that today, after the end of the cold war, the children of Britain are in greater danger from drug dealers than they are from a nuclear missile.
In the war against organised crime, intelligence is vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) took a very long time trying to persuade us that perhaps the intelligence services have no role to play in that, but I was not persuaded. I do not mind whether the security services are seeking a role. The fact is that they have skills, expertise and information that are vital in the fight against crime, and we should be very foolish indeed not to use them.

Mr. Rogers: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the security services looking for a role. They have been co-operating with all the law enforcement agencies for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about the police view of all this. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that prominent policemen have suggested using the intelligence gathering expertise of the security services.

Mr. Stephen: I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I was expressing my disagreement with other hon. Members who have said that the reason for this Bill may be that the security services are seeking a role. I do not think that they are; and whether they are or not is immaterial.
Let us not suppose that the conventional threats from which the security services have protected us over the past 40 years have gone away entirely—they are more likely to be in suspended animation. We would be foolish indeed to dismantle a system that has protected us well from those threats for many years.
I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on his point about public interest immunity certificates. It matters not whether the Minister who signs a certificate does so willingly or reluctantly. The important factor is that he signs it. That action puts before the judge the sensitive evidence that is the subject of the


certificate. It is therefore not a gagging certificate in any sense of the word. It enables the judge to see the evidence and decide for himself whether it should be admitted.
Many of our constituents may wonder why the Bill is necessary. They may always have thought that the security services help the police combat organised crime, and they may be surprised to learn that they have been legally prohibited from doing so. The Bill is necessary to remove that restriction, which is why I fully support it.
Of course, when gathering the information that they will need, the security services will need warrants to enter properties in the United Kingdom; but that right is limited by clause 2. The security services commissioner is already in place, and it is his duty to review the use of warrants by the security services.
The role of the police is vital, and the Government do not suggest that the security services should supplant that role in any way. Clause 1(1) states that the function of the service is to act
in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime".
One might have expected to read "in support of the police", but it is clear in any case that the role is a supportive, not a principal one.
The evidence collected by the security services may have to be put before a court, but the chief role of the security services will be to assist the police to discover evidence, not to give evidence in court themselves. It is more likely to be a police officer who has been put on to the evidence by the security services who will give it in court—not an employee of the security services. If it should become necessary for such an employee to give evidence, however, then arrangements can be made in suitable cases, just as they have been made in the past for serving SAS personnel, so as to ensure that security is not compromised. There is also a security services tribunal in which complaints against the service can be heard and determined.
The gathering and use of information is already restricted by section 2(2) of the Security Service Act 1989, which makes it clear that the director-general is under a duty to ensure that
there are arrangements for securing that no information is obtained by the Service except so far as necessary for the proper discharge of its functions or disclosed by it except so far as necessary for that purpose or for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime
or for the purpose of criminal proceedings. The director-general is also required to ensure that the service
does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
All hon. Members are concerned about civil rights, but we are also concerned about the protection of the public. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) that there can be any absolutes in these matters. It is always a question of balancing the civil rights of the individual against the protection of the public. In a free and democratic society, we must all surrender some of our rights for the common good. I am quite confident that the Government have got the balance right in the Bill.
An additional safeguard comes in the form of the external staff counsellor, to whom any member of the security services can turn if he or she has doubts about

the work that they are instructed to do. Moreover, we have the parliamentary Committee which oversees the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service. Its members are senior parliamentarians whose judgment and integrity we can all trust. I do not think it desirable that the sensitive information which comes to their attention should be available to Parliament generally—I am sure that they can be relied on.
The Bill does not propose to give the Security Service any additional powers; it merely allows it to operate in a new area. Like many other hon. Members, I have my doubts about the definition to be found in lines nine to 12 of the Bill. It is too vague. Although we do not want to restrict the Security Service in its fight against organised crime, we do not want it to have the power to deal with wholly inappropriate cases either. As a matter of practice, I think it unlikely that it would, and, if it did, the Home Secretary would face considerable criticism at the Dispatch Box. I ask the Minister to think again and, if he can, to come up with a tighter definition in Committee, and one that will satisfy the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides today.
It is important to note that the Security Service has no executive powers. It is not a police force, so I imagine that it will be up to the service to ask the police to execute any warrant that it may wish to use.
Local police forces are an important part of our constitution—the system whereby power has been dispersed around the country. I would not want that reversed, but crime is not local; organised crime can be national or even international. The regional crime squads have certainly been effective. In 1994–95 they recovered £176 million-worth of drugs and £36 million-worth of counterfeit money. I am also glad that the national crime squad that the Prime Minister has proposed is taking shape, and I hope it will come into operation soon. We cannot fight organised criminals without a proper national crime squad. Whether such a squad is desirable is a matter for this House. We can take the advice of police officers and other experts, but it is for us and no one else to decide whether this country should have a national crime squad.
The investigation of crime should be co-ordinated, but it is also important to co-ordinate the prosecution of crime. There are many prosecuting agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry. In recent cases, it has been found that the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing has caused enormous trouble for individuals and for the Government. I hope in future that the Attorney-General's office will have a much more effective liaison and co-ordinating role in the prosecution of crime.
It is no good catching criminals unless one is prepared to deal firmly with them. I welcome the recent introduction of much longer, extended sentences for persons who have been convicted of serious or persistent crime. Once the persons have been convicted and sentenced, it is necessary that they are dealt with much more firmly in prison.
I do not subscribe to the view that people go to prison just as punishment. They go to prison for punishment as well. The House must send out a message loud and clear to drug barons who will use even murder for their purposes that anyone who deliberately takes another


person's life should know, before he pulls the knife or the trigger, that he will go to prison for the rest of his natural life.

Mr. George Galloway: To borrow a phrase from earlier, I was not sure whether, in his hearty felicitation to Stella Rimington, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was advancing a sort of probing amendment, or whether it represented the Front-Bench team's position. In any event, I am not alone in the parliamentary Labour party's ranks. As the author of an early-day motion calling for Mrs. Rimington to be sacked from her job, which obtained the support of more than 50 of my fellow Labour Members, it would be a little foolish of me to join in the Front-Bench spokesman's congratulations on her retirement.
I am sure that those congratulations were sincere, but they were misguided. My good as well as honourable Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) lived through the same period as me. As an activist, I will never forget the role played by Stella Rimington as head of F branch of MI5 in subverting and sabotaging the National Union of Mineworkers' legal withdrawal of labour, when the enemy within was identified by the security services, almost certainly—contradicting a point made earlier—under the direction of the political leadership of the day, and when all sorts of atrocious abuses of miners' liberty took place. People who toiled in the bowels of the earth to produce wealth for this country had their democratic rights and liberties systematically subverted by MI5 under Stella Rimington's direction. In those circumstances, it is no less than a monstrosity for us to offer her any congratulations.
The Home Secretary was at his most emollient this evening, but frankly, he was no more persuasive in that guise than in his more usual wolfish manner. I have sat through virtually every minute of this debate, and one of the overwhelming things that has struck me is how little wholehearted support exists for this measure in the House.
Apart from the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), who seemed more or less wholehearted until the last few minutes of his speech, virtually everyone has stated their support in principle, before laying into the measure with a barrage of anxieties, caveats and even criticisms. That makes me wonder how it can be that this measure is to go through the House this evening without the opposition of a substantial number of people.
I make it clear that, because it is apparently my party's line, I will not vote against the measure, but I cannot be dragged into voting for it. Like others, I think that, when this measure returns for Third Reading, all of us must seriously consider whether the measure has been sufficiently amended to take care of the many anxieties that have been expressed.
An enormous red herring has been dragged through the debate from the beginning. It is that, somehow, if we do not support the measure, we are soft on organised and serious crime. As I listened to hon. Member after hon. Member accurately describe the horrendous growth and proliferation of crime, and the fear and misery that goes with it, I considered two issues.
First, who has presided over that monumental increase in the evil of crime? Who has been in office for the past 17 years, when crime has multiplied in the way that it has,

and who has presided over the country's economic and social conditions, in which crime and drug-taking has bred so prolifically? Does anyone believe that the housing estates of Glasgow and of this country's other great cities, where young people are injecting deadly junk into their veins, can be separated from the despair and hopelessness that those people have experienced in that period? Does anyone think that those two matters are separate?
The second question that occurred to me was: if this problem is so gigantic, and it is, how can we begin to believe that, by transferring a few dozen or even a few hundred G-men from MI5, or a few millions or even a few tens of millions of pounds of their resources, we will make a serious dent in this problem?
I am led to this conclusion: why do not we spend extra money on our police force to tackle problems of criminality? If the people in MI5 are exceptionally skilled—everyone here seems to think they are—why do we not make them into policemen and transfer them into the civilian police, where they can operate under normal policing conditions, including normal standards of accountability?
I do not have sufficient confidence in the accountability of the Security Service willingly to go along with this proposal. I have said so before, in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I am too mindful of the times not in the distant past, when some sections of the Security Service have acted not only outwith, but against, the law, willingly to see them transferred on to our streets as a secret adjunct to the civilian police force.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a remarkably powerful and well-informed speech, which some people have foolishly rebuked because of its length, but, frankly, there was little more to be said after that speech. He said that not all MI5 members bugged and burgled their way across London—that is true—but that some of them did; and who were they bugging and burgling? It was the elected Prime Minister, who was titularly in charge of the very Security Service that was subverting him. It was not disproved. On the contrary, it was confirmed by the head of MI5 to the late Harold Wilson that he had been bugged and burgled by a section of the security services.
I talked earlier about MI5's role in the great miners' strike of 1984–85. Only this week, I have been grappling with the scandal—of which, I assure the Minister, we have not heard the last—of a conspiracy involving captains of British industry, acting in concert with Security Service members and the Saudi Arabian Government—a dictatorship at that—to subvert the democratic liberty of a political refugee living in this country, and to plot perhaps his kidnapping and perhaps even his murder while living here, so I am sorry to break with the consensus.
I am sure that there are good men and women in MI5. There must be. One of the ridiculous aspects of this matter is the painting of the Security Service as a brigade of James Bonds. MI5 and MI6 are composed of ordinary flesh-and-blood people, some of them brilliant, some fools, some knaves and some communist spies, so let us not paint that group as a panacea for the terrible ills that we have all been describing and that we all see every day in our constituencies. It is a service of good men and bad men, good women and bad women. This evening, reference enough has been made for that to be demonstrated.
I do not believe that the Government have made a very good case. I do not know why there was no Scottish Office Minister here today. When my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked the blindingly brilliant question about which Secretary of State would have the right to sign warrants to set the security services loose on crime issues in our country, the Home Secretary, uncharacteristically—he is a clever man—floundered and could not answer the question. He had to seek refuge in waffle. The truth is that the Secretary of State for Scotland must be the person to sign such warrants in Scotland, or we will change the entire basis of the governance of Scotland. The Minister of State on the Front Bench is a former Whip attached to the Scottish Office, and he must know that. That question was not dealt with properly, and had not been thought of in advance.
The nub of the issue is that identified by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Who will these people take their orders from? Who will task them—to use the word that has been used today—who will they relate to, and to whom will they be accountable? The Government have not even begun to advance answers to those critical questions. They had better do so in Committee and on Third Reading if the measure is to command any intelligent and informed support.

Mr. Charles Hendry: The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) will send a chill through hon. Members on both sides of the House and many others who heard it. It shows the innate hostility that exists among too many Opposition Members—although not all of them—and the pathological hatred that still exists of those who seek to prevent the subversion of our democratic processes.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was disappointing, because he trivialised the drug problem. It is not a problem that exists solely in rundown inner-city housing estates in Scotland. It occurs throughout our country, regardless of class, background, sex or region. It is not a response to hopelessness, but an international problem which affects this country as it affects socialist and other countries throughout the world. It needs to be reacted to in that same international and co-ordinated way.
I want to start with the drugs problem. On new year's day, as many of us were celebrating the start of the new year, one young girl was fighting for her life in Peterborough district hospital. Helen Cousins, aged 19, had taken an ecstasy tablet at a new year's eve party and immediately went into a coma, showing some of the symptoms that had so tragically killed Leah Betts only a few weeks previously. Thankfully, on 3 January, she regained consciousness, but she nearly became the first victim of drug misuse in 1996. That is a fear which affects every parent of teenagers in this country. It was perhaps ironic that her regaining consciousness coincided with the receipt by many hon. Members of a video called "Sorted", which was prepared by Granada Television and circulated to every secondary school in the country with the intention of warning children of 11 and over about the danger of drugs. It is hard to imagine a more disturbing and worrying film. In the film, Leah Betts's father asks, "Why Leah?" As one watches the film, the reasons for her death become more evident.
We see one of Leah's friends saying:
We didn't want to drink, so we took the pills.
That unwittingly vocalises a myth that is shared by so many young people and which is propagated by those involved in the organised crime behind the drugs trade that ecstasy and similar tablets are somehow a cleaner and healthier alternative to some of the temptations facing young people in our society.
Leah Betts's sister said that the drugs were known as "Doves" because of the image of the bird stencilled on the tablets. That is another disturbing motif. In the name of fashion, people are taking a designer drug in the same way as they would buy designer clothes, but it has all the connotations of peace, contentment and well-being. Again, that is an image propagated by the evil people in the drugs trade. What we see is the terrifying portrayal of the way in which organised crime is preying on young people throughout the country. As I have said, we cannot pretend that it affects only one section of our society, because it occurs throughout the country, regardless of education, sex or background.
Of course, a great deal is going on to deal with that. There are many excellent education programmes, and I am privileged to be associated with one called Life Education Centres, which takes the message to primary schools so that children of the youngest ages can be made aware of the problems of all types of addiction and related problems. However, those efforts are being undermined day after day by people who derive an immensely wealthy living from the organised crime of the drugs trade.
Although they are an integral part of the chain in the drugs industry, the problem is not just with the petty criminals or the young people who are passing on the tablets at very little profit to their schoolfriends and mates. We must be most worried about the organisers, those at the very top of the chain, who are the hardest to reach because they are so many steps away from the front line where the drugs are being made available.
The Bill addresses not just the drugs problem but illegal immigration racketeers, illegal arms dealers and those who become involved in multiple vehicle theft. That is why we need to address the issue differently.
Organised crime is changing. It is more organised, more complex, more insidious and more international than ever before. That is why our police need extra support. They need not just extra financial support but extra skills, which are different from those which have been evident in the police force in the past. That is why we are right to make it possible for the Security Service to co-operate in a way that has not been possible in the past.
The Security Service has particular skills in long-term information gathering, surveillance, intercepting communications and other things which are vital to the police as they try to carry out their work. Although the Bill will provide extra powers for the security services, especially extending the search and entry powers beyond cases of suspected terrorism and subversion, it does not give them the same powers as the police. The police will continue to be in the lead and that is an important safeguard for civil liberties. It is important to retain a balance, so that both organisations are involved in the battle.
I listened with care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), but I had a feeling that he was attaching too much importance to the historical


purity of the security services and was not giving enough recognition to the fact that all the resources that we have available in this country should be used to tackle the problems that we have to face now.
It is crucial that we have greater co-ordination among the organisations fighting crime. My constituency shows clearly the need for such co-operation. It is positioned close to the borders of Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, and it is clear that much of the crime experienced by my constituents is committed not by Derbyshire residents but by those who live outside the area and outside the jurisdiction of our police.
That is why we have needed greater co-ordination through the NCIS and the DNA database and through the mutual exchange of information, so that fingerprints from different parts of the country can be compared more clearly. That is the progress we have been seeing, and that co-ordination is vital. It must continue if we are to make it easier to tackle crime.
We need to take things further to facilitate the co-operation between the police and the Security Service. As other hon. Members have said, there is a need for caution. We need to ensure that the definitions in the Bill are fair and accurate, and that the potential for excess is avoided.
We want to ensure that we do not go too far and that there continue to be proper accountability, reporting lines and control. We need to ensure that the historic roles of the Security Service are not threatened as it continues to do its vital work. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and it is easy for me to support it tonight.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Bill could well carry the title of an early Rolling Stones record—"Not Fade Away". With the end of the cold war and with the Irish ceasefire, MI5 is looking for a role. I understand that Ministers do not want it to go out of existence because other dangers might arise at some future point. It is a case of not fading away—that is what the Bill is about.
The Government want to extend MI5's role to include drug trafficking and organised crime, yet those tasks are already being performed by the police. Although it might be reasonable to consider extending MI5's role in that way, I am concerned that the original intention that it should assist the police has changed to taking the lead. That suggestion was contained in a paper submitted to the Cabinet by Stella Rimington, Director-General of the Security Service. Such a change has wide implications for the police. I am not convinced that MI5 should take the lead, and any such change must be justified by Ministers.
Hon. Members have already referred to Peter Wright and "Spycatcher". Mr. Wright said that, during the 1960s, he and his colleagues in MI5 bugged and burgled their way across London. The Bill widens the scope for bugging and burglary, because it allows the Security Service lawfully to enter or interfere with property. If the Government want that, they should consider compensation for the higher insurance premiums that people will have to pay.
There is a suspicion that the warrants to allow such behaviour are signed far too easily by Ministers. Under the Bill, the warrants will be extended to cover computers, telecommunications and E-mail. That may be acceptable

where there is reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking or organised crime, but not for a fishing exercise. Ministers cannot be relied upon to draw that distinction before they sign warrants. Quite frankly, it would be better if judges were able to draw that distinction and sign warrants.
Has the Data Protection Registrar been asked about the Bill's implications? After all, the Security Service will have access to Government information technology and the ability to break encryption codes; it has even been suggested that it will have access to census data, something which Governments have always said would not happen. Has the registrar been asked about those aspects? If not, the Government have been negligent.
I am worried about the possible sub-contracting of activities by the Security Service. After all, privatisation is the name of the game. The service may well sub-contract some aspects of burglary and bugging. In what way do the powers in the Bill relate to such sub-contracting? It is my view that sub-contracting should not be allowed. I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
The Government are not in a position to do anything about the protection of MI5's informants. As the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, the informants against Matrix Churchill and Ordtech were abandoned when the Government's role was discovered. The Bill does not deal with that issue. That brings me to the issue of public interest immunity certificates. New and proper guidelines should be drawn up for their use, which should be restricted. I am sure that the Scott inquiry will recommend something along those lines. Judges, not Ministers, should have the final say on the issuing of those certificates.
I remain alarmed about the role of the Security Service in industrial disputes, which under current legislation are viewed as subversion. Hon. Members have already referred to the example of the miners' strike. Indeed, the parent Act is used in an anti-trade union way. Often, that subversion is put on the same footing as serious crime—and it should not be. Clause 2 provides that a warrant should be signed only for crimes that would merit three years' imprisonment. That virtually rules out any action by MI5 in industrial disputes, as very few of them would meet the provisions of clause 2. I am thinking of tabling an amendment to ensure that MI5 is removed from a role that I believe it has been wrongly given.
High finance fraud is organised crime, but MI5 has a poor record on that—for example, BCCI and Maxwell. How many other big businesses have been diddling their customers, pensioners and employees? The Security Service has not done very much about that. I suspect that it does not have the expertise for such a role.
One key problem is the role that the Security Service plays in national interest and national security matters. The scope is very wide. I am convinced that civil servants and Ministers use it for their own and their party's benefit. Therefore, a proper definition of that role must be contained in law if it is to be properly applied, not abused. The interpretation of "national interest" should not lie with civil servants and Ministers; judges should interpret it within the law.
As a number of my hon. Friends have said, the accountability of the Security Service is poor. A tribunal was set up under the 1985 Act to deal with the interception of communications, but no complaints have been upheld to date. A Security Service commissioner and


tribunal were established under the 1989 Act, but no complaints have been upheld to date. As far as I am aware, the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House has made no significant adverse criticisms. On that record, it seems that we have a perfect organisation—yet we all know that every organisation makes mistakes. Because no complaints have been upheld, it is obvious that they have not been properly acknowledged.
In referring to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House—although it is not really a Committee of the House but is a Committee of the Government, because it reports to the Prime Minister—Liberty said that it could not do its job properly, because there were draconian controls on its access to information. It said:
The 1994 Act fails to give real and substantial control of the work of the services to Parliament.
Greater accountability to Parliament is needed. There will be no accountability to Parliament or the law while there are such vague, wide definitions—or no definition—of crucial elements of the Security Service's operation that make it impossible for a judge to adjudicate on any relevant issue.
There may be a continuing role for MI5, but that should not be at the expense of fundamental civil liberties. We should improve civil liberties and the accountability of the security services to this House.

Mr. David Faber: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, in their absence, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for not being present for the start of the debate. The Social Security Committee, on which I serve, was finalising its report on the Child Support Agency. I have, however, enormously enjoyed the debate since I arrived just after the opening speeches. I especially enjoyed the fascinating history lesson about the Security Service given by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).
Much has been said about the end of the cold war, the ceasefires in Northern Ireland and the need to find the Security Service some role to fulfil. It is irrelevant whether the service itself is seeking that role or others are seeking the role for it. We live in an age of localised conflicts around the world, illegal nuclear proliferation and, sadly, a very fragile peace in Northern Ireland. The Security Service has a great deal on its plate without the further tasks that it is being required to undertake. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen); I do not mind whether the Security Service has sought the role or others have imposed it, it is a role for which it is clearly well designed and which it is well able to fulfil.
There is an obvious need for us to use the Security Service's expertise to help tackle the increasingly complex and sophisticated threat of organised and serious crime. It is difficult to quantify that threat. Indeed, until recently, it has been very difficult to establish the extent of the problem. As I understand it, since October, the National Criminal Intelligence Service has been piloting a notification system in 10 police forces around the country. It is to be hoped that that will prove a successful means of gathering nationwide data on the exact extent of the problem.
As serious crime becomes more sophisticated, crucial and good intelligence becomes more important. The Security Service, whatever we have been told, has a proven record of mounting intelligence investigations into the most secretive organisations. The Bill would enable the Security Service to use that expertise to complement the law enforcement agencies such as the police and Customs and Excise.
It is important to stress that the police and the existing agencies are already doing an excellent job—as many hon. Members have said. They are achieving considerable success in the fight against all aspects of crime, as was highlighted most recently in the welcome and continuing drop in the crime figures, but there is no doubt that we need the broader package of skills that would be brought to the problem by the Security Service, which were listed most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Those assets can only be of value and of support to the police. If anything, the Bill is not only welcome, but somewhat overdue.
What is the nature and the extent of the threat of serious crime and what are we doing at the moment to combat it? There is no single or simple definition of serious crime, and we are still at an early stage in the collection of data via the NCIS on the extent of the problem.
As the Home Affairs Committee recognised last year in its report, there is little point in worrying about the precise definition of serious crime. The Bill does not seek—rightly—to impose any such narrow definition. Key characteristics are widely recognised, although the nature of crime will always change as new opportunities for the criminal to profit arise.
It would surely be wrong to apportion fewer resources to one crime, just because it was not considered organised, when it might be extremely serious. There are certain obvious categories of serious crime—most notably the obscene international trade in drugs, about which we have heard a great deal, most recently and most eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak.
One or two hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—have said that Members of Parliament are not always at the sharp end of drug abuse; that we are not on the streets seeing the pushers and the effects of drugs. I like to think that I am one of the Members of Parliament who occasionally sees the sharp end of drug abuse, albeit at the other end—rehabilitation and the appalling time that drug addicts have trying to come off drugs.
For someone such as me, who sees the pain and misery caused by drug abuse, nothing could be more important than to use every available resource. I was particularly glad that, just a couple of weeks before Christmas, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary came to Downview prison to see the work of the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust, of which I am a trustee, which is trying to break the dreadful spiral of drug abuse in prisons and crime on the outside. Many people who see the dreadful effects of drug abuse understand the problem and will welcome the Bill as a further step to fight the evil trade of drug trafficking.
What else is being done in the battle against organised crime and what are our plans for the future? At present, individual police forces tackle crime in their own areas and there are of course six regional crime squads with


more than 1,400 officers at their disposal who are able to deal with serious crime at regional, national and international level.
At the Conservative party conference last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a commitment to discuss the creation of a so-called national squad to tackle organised crime, and in its report published in the summer, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that the present structure of the regional crime squads should be replaced by a more nationally co-ordinated structure.
That could, perhaps, be done by giving the national co-ordinator of the regional crime squads the executive role which he lacks. No doubt discussions between the Home Office and the police on the best way in which to put my right hon. Friend's commitment into practice are under way. We all look forward to hearing more about that.
During the debate on the Loyal Address in November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced a commitment to strengthen the role of the NCIS, giving it greater freedom from the Home Office, which is surely to be welcomed.
As has been said frequently in the debate, organised crime poses a diverse threat, and it is right that a range of agencies with diverse skills and abilities should be made available to tackle it. No single agency can do it on its own and it is important that individual contributions are properly co-ordinated. Regional crime squads and Customs and Excise are already doing an excellent job. Various hon. Members have cited figures that illustrate the squads' success but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said, it is likely that they are only the tip of the iceberg. The package of measures in the Bill will further strengthen our response to organised crime.
How will the Security Service become involved in the day-to-day operations as soon, I hope, as the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes law? Clause 1 extends the functions of the Security Service to uphold our national security and maintain our economic well-being. A new, third, function will be to act in support of law enforcement agencies to detect and combat organised crime.
It is crucial to note that the Security Service will be supporting the police and Customs and Excise in accordance with the arrangements for co-ordination, which can surely best be made between the director-general and the agencies. It is obviously important that members of the Security Service should familiarise themselves as soon as possible with the workings of and the personnel in the police forces and Customs and Excise departments with which they will be dealing.
A number of key principles should be established to govern that co-ordination. Law enforcement agencies must retain the principal responsibility for countering serious crime. Work against organised crime will be co-ordinated by the NCIS and other co-ordinating groups. The Security Service will not set its own tasks, but will rely on groups such as the NCIS and Customs and Excise to set them for it. The Security Service has, over many years, established excellent working links with law enforcement agencies throughout the country, and it is crucial that they should be built on as soon as possible.
A successful and harmonious working relationship between the Security Service and the police is at the very heart of the Bill's success. Those of us who recognise the

outstanding work done by our individual local police forces and who speak up on their behalf regularly would not want anything that might harm or weaken their ability to combat crime locally to be done.
It is understandable that the police should have expressed anxieties during the preparation of the Bill. I am delighted that its final version has been reached in agreement with them. The police work under extremely strict legal guidelines. They greatly value the reputation for accountability and transparency that they have built up with the public over many years. They are naturally concerned that any work undertaken by the Security Service should adhere to existing arrangements under which they already work.
I very much hope that the police will be reassured by certain key principles, first, that the prime responsibility for countering organised crime should remain with the law enforcement agencies, most notably the police themselves. Secondly, as I have already described, the Security Service will be set its tasks by the NCIS and other, existing, co-ordinating groups. Thirdly, the Security Service will at all times act in support of the NCIS, local police forces, regional crime squads, Customs and Excise and whoever tackles a particular crime. The police will also be reassured by the fact that the Security Service will at all times draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. It is vital that it devotes the full range of its resources to the new part of its job just as it would to any existing interest.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well, it is vital to those of us who have devoted considerable energy during the past two years to safeguarding, and we hope increasing, the funding available for our local police forces that the cost of Security Service involvement should be borne by the service itself. It should not affect adversely in any way existing police funding settlements. The resources that the Security Service chooses to devote to its new function are for it to decide and will depend on existing commitments.
Initially, the service might find the additional resources from within its existing budget. Given the uncertainty of the world in which we live, however, it should always be ready to respond to unforeseen circumstances to protect our national security. I strongly hope, therefore, that given the Security Service's important new role, Ministers will consider carefully at all times the resources that are available to the service via the single intelligence vote.
We live in an ever-changing world, but one that is still dangerous. The old threats might not seem quite the same, but the Security Service still has a crucial role to play at home and abroad in safeguarding the national security of the country. The menace of organised crime, especially the evil of drug trafficking about which we have heard so much today, is ever more with us and poses every bit as great a threat as did the issues of old to the well-being of future generations. The Bill will greatly strengthen the hand of the police in the battle against such crime. I hope that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Like many of my colleagues who have already spoken, I am critical of the Bill because I believe that any worthwhile parts of MI5 should be absorbed into the police force and made subject


to the normal rule of law. I say that because there is a deeply entrenched climate of treason within MI5. We have all heard about the events in the 1970s and the events in Northern Ireland, but the climate of treason and strong links between the Conservative party and MI5 officers have been endemic throughout the century.
We all know about the Zinoviev letter, which led to the downfall of the first Labour Government in 1924. It is now believed to have been produced by two Russian emigres who were working in Berlin. They passed the forgery to an MI5 officer, Donald im Thurn. Once in the hands of MI5, senior officials realised that its details of an alleged communist plot would be a devastating blow to the Labour Government in the closing days of the election campaign. MI5 leaked the letter to a Tory Member of Parliament and former intelligence officer, Sir Reginald Hall. It also leaked it to Tory central office and the Daily Mail, which obligingly ran it on its front page.
In the run-up to the 1929 election, the links between MI5 and the Tory party were renewed. The head of MI5's investigation branch, Major Joseph Ball, was employed by Conservative central office to run agents inside the Labour party. After the election, Ball was rewarded with the directorship of the Tories' research department.
The major problems inside MI5 concern its relationship with the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. As the Minister responsible for trade in the Attlee Government, he attempted to increase exports to the USSR. He constantly ran up against United States Government opposition towards any growth in such trade. Wilson felt that the United States used the hysteria of the cold war to prevent Britain from increasing its trade with the USSR. His was not a position that was likely to be viewed with favour in MI5. In fact, there was near hysteria in MI5 when he was sent to the USSR to negotiate the sale of 20 advanced jet engines. Wilson was only a junior Minister carrying out a Cabinet decision, but from that point on he was viewed with suspicion by MI5 officers.
When the unexpected death of Hugh Gaitskell led to the election of Wilson in 1963, MI5 immediately tried to recruit Wilson's campaign manager, George Caunt, to spy on the Labour leader. Shortly before the 1964 election, the FBI told MI5 that it had discovered a KGB mole who had been operating inside MI5 in the key post-war period. The fact that Sir Anthony Blunt was a KGB agent and had close connections with the Queen was certain to create a spy scandal as damaging as that of Kim Philby. Even worse for MI5 was the knowledge that it had been tipped off about Blunt's spying a decade earlier and had failed to take action. It now feared that Wilson would use the opportunity of the scandal to dismember its organisation. Sir Roger Hollis, then director-general of MI5, and Arthur Martin, head of the counter-espionage department, decided on a cover-up and did not even tell the outgoing Tory Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan. Instead, Blunt was granted immunity and was interrogated by Peter Wright, who made the position clear in "Spycatcher", when he wrote:
We had strict orders from successive Director-Generals to do nothing that might provoke Blunt to go public.
All that was concealed from Wilson when he became Prime Minister, and he was also not informed when Hollis and his deputy, Graham Mitchell, eventually came under suspicion as KGB moles.
Other news was kept from Wilson. In 1961, Anatoli Golitsin, a KGB defector, had arrived in the USA with all sorts of wild allegations few of which yielded anything of substance except the identity of the Admiralty spy, John Vassall. By coincidence, shortly after Wilson's election as Leader of the Opposition, Golitsin was sent to Britain to be interviewed by MI5. His agreed fee was £10,000 a month—£70,000 at today's prices—which was a considerable incentive to keep the interest of his MI5 hosts. Although he had made no mention of it during his two-year interrogation in the USA, Golitsin now told MI5 that he had heard of a KGB plot to kill the leader of a west European political party so that its man could take over. That was all that Peter Wright and other extreme right-wingers inside MI5 needed to confirm the suspicions that had been hanging around ever since the jet engine trade deal and Wilson's annual visits to the USSR while in opposition. They believed that the assassinated party leader had to be Gaitskell.
Oblivious to the suspicions of MI5 and the CIA, the new Labour Prime Minister Wilson issued instructions that MI5 was to stop tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament, although it never occurred to him that MI5 could continue to get access to the information gleaned from taps on Members of Parliament run by the CIA or GCHQ. He also instructed that MI5 should stop using Members as agents without knowing that one Tory Member, Captain Henry Kerby, had been used by MI5 to ingratiate himself with Wilson's shadow Cabinet colleague George Wigg by spying on the Tory party for Wigg. It gives one great encouragement that such people might have a greater role in law enforcement in the future.
The instructions from Wilson caused deep resentment inside MI5, where some officers retaliated by leaking damaging bits of gossip about members of Wilson's Government from MI5 files to the press. That was of course a breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911, but no one has ever been prosecuted.
MI5 believed that seven members of Wilson's Government and three other Labour Members of Parliament were either spies or at the very least security risks. Only one of those 10, Will Owen, the Member of Parliament for Morpeth, eventually turned out to be guilty. He had been taking £500 a month from Czechoslovakian intelligence in exchange for low-grade information that it could most probably have got cheaper by buying Hansard and reading the quality press. All the other names on MI5's list were completely innocent, but that did not stop MI5, in particular Peter Wright, hounding Bernard Floud, who had been devastated by the death of his wife. MI5 pursued him until he finally committed suicide in a moment of despair.
When Treasury Minister Niall MacDermot had his promotion to the Cabinet blocked following MI5 pressure on Wilson, he resigned from politics in disgust. The other seven Members on MI5's list were John Diamond, Tom Driberg, Judith Hart, Stephen Swingler, John Stonehouse, Barnet Stross and, of course, Wilson.
The MI5-inspired rumours about Wilson eventually reached the ears of former Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who asked James Scott-Hopkins, a former MI6 officer who had become a Tory Member of Parliament, to conduct his own investigation to discover whether there was any danger of Wilson's being blackmailed.
In the summer of 1967, people from MI5 met people from the CIA, the FBI and the Australian and New Zealand security services in Melbourne, Australia, where they were addressed by Golitsin about his Wilson allegations.
Matters began to hot up when the press baron Cecil King, a long-standing MI5 agent, began to discuss the need for a coup against the Wilson Government. King informed Peter Wright that the Daily Mirror would publish any damaging anti-Wilson leaks that MI5 wanted aired, and at a meeting with Lord Mountbatten and the Government's chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman, he urged Mountbatten to become the leader of a Government of national salvation. Lucky old Britain. Zuckerman pointed out that that was treason, and left the meeting. The idea came to nothing because of Mountbatten's reluctance to act.
All that might seem quite eccentric in the cold light of day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Absolutely. Conservative Members with lunatic—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am not concerned with eccentricity, but I am concerned with the fact that we are dealing with the Second Reading of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman must now relate his remarks more closely to the Bill.

Mr. Livingstone: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pointing out that treason against Labour Governments has been endemic in MI5 throughout its history, and that it has co-operated with Conservative Members of Parliament against the elected Government of the day. On those grounds, and because I do not believe that Stella Rimington or anybody else has done anything to change the climate of treason in the organisation, I oppose the Bill. I believe that MI5 should be broken up, and any worthwhile bits of it given to the police to operate as usefully as they can within the law.
What I have described might seem quite eccentric, but it is important to remember that a former intelligence officer once drew up plans about where to site an internment camp in the Shetland islands for Labour Members of Parliament and trade union activists whom MI5 felt might be disloyal, if it felt it necessary for the state to step in.
The late Harold Wilson was not the only one under suspicion. While the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Leader of the Opposition, the Tory Member of Parliament, Captain Henry Kerby—as I have explained, he was an MI5 agent who had ingratiated himself with George Wigg—was used to spread rumours that the right hon. Gentleman was a homosexual who had had an affair with a Swedish diplomat.
Doubts about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup were not confined to the more extreme elements who clustered round Peter Wright. The newly appointed head of MI5, Mr. Hanley—otherwise known as Jumbo—did not inform the right hon. Gentleman that investigations were taking place to try to determine whether Sir Roger Hollis had been a KGB agent.
The head of MI5 did not inform the Leader of the Opposition of MI5's doubts about Wilson, either, or reveal the contents of the file on Wilson that he had inherited from his predecessor, Furnival Jones, and which was kept in his safe, filed under the name "Henry Worthington".
The second factor that increased MI5's alarm at the time was the rise in trade union militancy and the swing to the left in the Labour party. Any pretext that MI5 existed to catch Russian spies went right out of the window at that point. From 1972, there was a vast growth in the sections of MI5 that were involved with domestic surveillance.
Trade unionists, peace campaigners, Cabinet Ministers and political activists in their tens of thousands became the objects of illegal telephone taps and letter intercepts. Recruitment of agents on a scale not considered necessary even at the height of the cold war meant that, by the mid-1970s, even a small group of left-wingers meeting anywhere was likely to have an MI5 agent reporting back on its activities. By the end of the 1970s, 2 million British citizens had security files held on them by MI5.
A constant drip of innuendo about Wilson's loyalty was fed by MI5 to Private Eye, and Michael Halls, the liaison officer between No. 10 and MI5, considered Marcia Williams to be a security risk and funnelled damaging smears about her and Wilson to Private Eye. As Peter Wright put it in his book:
most people in MI5 didn't have a duty to Parliament. They have a duty to the Queen…It's up to us to stop Russians getting control of the British government.
Although it is easy to dismiss some of what I have described as the work of a lunatic fringe, the views of MI5 chief Sir Michael Hanley are well known. When he was asked at a seminar for junior MI5 officers what would happen if Michael Foot became Prime Minister, he replied:
I and every other officer in the service will have to consider our position.
Other officers in MI5 did not share Hanley's sense of resignation, and 30 MI5 officers, including Peter Wright, engaged, on Wright's own admission, in 23 criminal conspiracies and committed 12 acts of treason against the elected Government of the day.
Finally, what was happening came to the attention of Sir Maurice Oldfield, then head of MI6, who took Wright to dinner at Lockets restaurant in July 1975 and asked him about the extent of the plot in MI5 against Wilson. Having heard Wright out, Oldfield told him to put MI5 chief Hanley in the picture. This Wright did the next day, and in his book he says:
Hanley…went white as a sheet…he was learning that half of his staff were up to their necks in a plot to get rid of the Prime Minister.
While Hanley was pondering what to do to defuse that time bomb, George Weidenfeld the publisher asked to see Wilson and warned him about the gossip—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I warned him before about giving what is virtually a potted history, according to him, of MI5. He must relate what he says to the debate. The hon. Gentleman has now illustrated the point well beyond what is necessary to illustrate his reason for opposing the Bill—I take it that he does. I must also point out that he appears to be reading, whereas of course "Erskine May" tells us that Members, apart from Ministers, may not read, although they may look at notes.

Mr. Livingstone: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will recall, I submitted 360 questions about MI5 and its treasonable activities during the previous


Parliament, and every one was rubbished by the Government. I constantly received evasive answers. When I raised the matter with the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher as she then was, she denied them vigorously.
Then, of course, two thirds of the way through that Parliament, a statement was made to the House admitting that there had been a "clockwork orange" plot against the Labour Government, and that the allegations in Peter Wright's book were effectively true. A special inquiry was set up to examine how people had been damaged in that process and we then found, to our horror, that MI5 officers tried to nobble the inquiry set up to investigate the allegations made by Colin Wallace.
When we consider that record, we realise that it involves more than one or two eccentrics such as Peter Wright, and that there is clearly a culture of extreme right-wing politics in MI5, which has been there throughout this century. Occasionally there are brought to the surface very deep links with individual Conservative Members of Parliament who have been able to use MI5, disinformation and black propaganda to damage Labour Members of Parliament and Governments.
I believe that nothing that Stella Rimington has done has changed that culture of treason and anti-Labour bias. I believe that the existence of MI5 is a threat to democracy in this country, and has been terribly damaging—fatal in some cases—to those who have been on the receiving end of it. For that reason, I believe it should be wound up. Anybody who wants to challenge any of the points I have made tonight should know that every single one of them has been proven academically. There is not a single fact in that list of horror stories which could be challenged on the ground of accuracy.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: After the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), it is clear that the arrangements of law relating to our security and intelligence services and to GCHQ do not give all hon. Members confidence in the integrity of the routes that they follow. The hon. Gentleman focused his attention on whether the operation of the service was accountable, decent and effective, and he will clearly have a busy time amending the entire range of the Government's legislation. He should be grateful to the Government, who have given him an opportunity to do so.
The hon. Gentleman touched on some of the matters that have genuinely concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the extent of the service's remit. Listening to colleagues and to the new members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, it has been depressing to realise that there is almost no description of the remit of the service given within the body of legislation; yet, with regard to the drug problem, the SIS has a mandate for serious international crime, so it can follow the matter through. Why, then, do we need the changes to the Security Service?
The Security Service has as its remit national security. That is a huge swathe of a definition that has concerned bodies and communities overseas that have taken common law and the English language as their subject. They include groups in Australia, New Zealand, the United

States and, of course, the fabulous and famous MacDonald commission in Canada. The commission examined the great difficulty that we face—balancing our freedoms and liberties on the one hand and our security on the other. The commission made that fabulous comment regarding freedom "under the law".
What we have today is an incoherent system of control, or half-control. It is difficult to thread one's way through the subject. We have a Committee made up of Members of this House and of another place whose remit is so limited that it is excluded from examining the commissioner's work and aspects of tribunals. The Committee cannot look back before the time it came into existence, and cannot look at some of the questions that have caused anxiety in the House.
The Bill gives an opportunity to try to define within the terms of the MacDonald commission and with regard to our liberties and freedoms what is necessary in terms of appropriate oversight. But, more important, it provides a definition in statute of what are the appropriate tasks. These are not general phrases that can give rise to anxieties among hon. Members that the tasks are being carried out improperly. I happen to believe that they are not, and there is no reason to think that they are.
Why are we, of all the advanced democracies in the world, so secretive and self-obsessed with what is the proper and prudent defence and protection of our liberties, certainties and confidence as citizens of the United Kingdom? This secrecy derives from the defence of the realm Acts of the second world war, and it can be heard from some of the older fuddy-duddy judges. The intense secrecy almost leads to the Government coming upon the rocks over the Scott inquiry. It is necessary to lie to one another in Whitehall and to keep the House of Commons understanding that a policy is contrary to what it actually is; the whole thing then blows up in one's face.
One of the difficulties with the Bill is that we hear much about the wonderments of the service, but how do we know? Where is the body of information? We have never had a White Paper or any of the other instruments of Government on this subject. There has never been a set of principles enunciated as to what guides the United Kingdom Government and the House of Commons in the conduct of what is, let us remember, the most onerous of intrusions into the freedoms and liberties of our people. We have learnt that most of the activities of the Security Service—carried out under some vague concept of prerogative power—were not lawful. Therefore, the House had to legislate to put on a lawful basis something that hitherto had been unlawful.
The range of legislation includes not just the intelligence and security services Bills but the interception of communications measures and also something that has not been mentioned, the Official Secrets Act. The House can imagine how onerous that Act is. I, as Secretary of State, can notify someone, and that individual, once notified, commits an absolute offence if he reveals any aspect of his work. That is why I shall be supporting the Bill on whistle-blowers which is to come before the House on 1 March. Our freedom is the first concern of this House, and security is necessary for our freedom.
I wanted to question how the information was evaluated. I have heard reference made to the good work carried out by the Home Affairs Select Committee on organised crime, but I see nowhere in the Committee's


reports interviews with security services personnel, or with police who said that they wanted the intelligence services to come into the police's business to guide and assist them. In fact, the Committee did not interview anyone, and the section on intelligence gathering is what one might call a commonsense attempt to try to get the facts. We have not been told the views of those who are involved in protecting our security, liberty and freedom. However, the police are accountable, and their operations are transparent. These are fundamental questions.
The only two speeches today that were worth anything—if everyone else will forgive me—were those of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who expressed great anxieties and asked how the Bill had come about. From where did the push to task the intelligence services—we should never forget that they are self-tasking—with this new power come? I do not know the balance of the argument because we have had no White Paper. We have never considered in a neutral forum what is the proper balance and what are the principles that should guide us. That is important.
We do not know what the Intelligence and Security Committee gets up to. I believe that its report was extremely useful. It would have been useful if the House could have seen some of the evidence that led it to its conclusions. It cannot all be secret information.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely unfair not only to me but to other hon. Members who have expressed the same strong reservations. Every Opposition Member who has spoken has expressed reservations about the content of the Bill and said that he wants to amend it. Any reservations that the hon. Gentleman now propounds are exactly the same as those that have been expressed by Opposition Members.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry if I do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. It was not my intention to do so. My intention was to cite—I know that it is invidious to do so—the two speeches that touched on the reservations.
As we have had no abstraction or setting aside such as the MacDonald commission, it is difficult to make a judgment about the Bill. In 1993, when the first brochure was published on the Security Service, there were no plans to include crime. In 1994 in the Dimbleby lectures, Stella Rimington said that the service would become involved only if organised crime posed a threat to national security, which is one of the tests. If we examine the remit of the Security Service, we can get an understanding of some of the anxieties about whether the Bill is necessary and whether the service does not have adequate powers now.
In November 1994, there were press reports that the Director-General of the Security Service saw benefits in closer liaison with the police. On 16 May last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said:
The Government have no plans to amend that legislation."—[Official Report, 16 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 191.]
Clearly, words were going around about reform of the Security Service.
On 17 July, the Home Affairs Select Committee report was published. I do not think that it contained any reference to the intelligence services and their application.
We then had an announcement at the party conference on 13 October by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Bill would be introduced. Then, as a result of the interest shown by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, its report was published on the Wednesday of our Christmas rising. The Committee had clearly been following the issue.
One of the ingredients of the report was that "serious crime" was a better expression than "organised crime". That was Wednesday 20 December. The Committee held a press conference at 12.30 pm that day. Later that afternoon—most Members of the House had gone; there had been a terrific vote the night before—the Government published the Bill. I did not have a copy. I do not know how many Members collected a copy on that Wednesday while the House was still sitting. The business for the second day after our return was the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Rogers: That is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Shepherd: I accept the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Last night, the Government published their response to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Is that a way to legislate? That is all I ask. It is profoundly mistaken. One of the reasons for the crisis in the standing of the House and the confidence of the British public in it is that people no longer trust our ability to make proper legislation. It is incoherent, it is often ill thought through and it is not tested.
The Asylum and Immigration Bill has been raised. I was tempted by the idea of pre-legislative consideration of the contentions behind that Bill. I see no problem with that as a proper arrangement. The Canadians do not legislate without a White Paper, some form of commission or a proper examination of the contentions within a piece of legislation.
We are looking at this legislation blind. It will go into Standing Committee upstairs and it is my guess that I will not be a member of that Committee. I was not a member of the Standing Committee on the Intelligence Services Bill. We know how the House works, and one accepts that, but is it an appropriate and proper way to legislate? That is the truth of the matter.
Most of my hon. Friends know no more than I do about the security or intelligence services, yet they proclaim that this Bill is the most appropriate route forward. Few hon. Members have the knowledge or the understanding to know whether, in truth, it is the appropriate route. That is all that this Second Reading debate is about.
I get nervous when I hear so many hon. Members saying that everyone is wonderful and that the legislation is wonderful. I am Scottish—being born in Aberdeen, I guess that I qualify as such—and the moment that I hear such a consensus, the hair at the back of my neck prickles. There is something wrong in this. I do not know where the force came from. As recently as May, the Home Secretary assured the House in a written answer that there were no plans for this legislation, which was dumped on us on the very day the House rose for the Christmas recess. We are dealing with it the day after coming back, having had the Christmas and new year holiday in between. The House's ability to consider the legislation on the information available is very limited. That is my caution.
Is there not another way to legislate, with pre-Second Reading hearings? It would make use of the talents and resources of the House if we considered the contentions in legislation.

Mr. Alun Michael: I listened with interest to the reservations that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) expressed about the way in which we legislate in the House. It is a point that the Opposition frequently make—the need for a more considered and reasonable way to deal with legislation and for more opportunity to think in advance of its publication.
That reservation is a general one and it is correct. It seems odd that it should be raised tonight, however, when there has been a reasonable and constructive Second Reading debate, which frequently does not happen, and when the sort of reservations that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised have been mentioned by many hon. Members and will clearly be the subject with which the Standing Committee will deal seriously in due course. The very fact that the Home Secretary has shown a willingness to hear suggestions demonstrates that the Standing Committee stage will be more constructive than usual and I hope that the Minister of State will give us some promises in that direction in his reply.
This has been an interesting debate on the contribution that MI5 can make to the fight against organised crime, as well as the checks and balances that are essential in a democracy. There has also been a subtext of the wider role and history of the intelligence services, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have gone down that avenue will forgive me if I do not pursue them, because I want to concentrate on the Bill and the elements that need to be added to it during its scrutiny in the House.
The Bill has been introduced against a background of general concern about organised crime, which was the subject of the recent report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It comes at a time of increasing public anxiety about a series of particularly violent incidents. Although generally seen to be local in nature and not directly related to organised crime, those incidents fuel a public sense of unease.
In recent years, there has been a heated debate about the best way to tackle crime. The Home Secretary has offered tough action and the Labour party has certainly refined a coherent strategy to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, but there have also been major changes in the accountability of the police.
In the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the Home Secretary took considerable powers over police finances—the power to set national performance indicators—and established new-style police authority committees, in which the role of elected members was reduced. At that time, there was no acceptance of proposals that were widely supported by police and local authority associations, to give a statutory basis to a partnership approach, which would have required the police and the local authority to work together and with the local community to tackle crime. For that reason, I was particularly glad to hear the Home Secretary affirm his support today for local policing and to hear that he is against the nationalisation of the police service.
How, though, is that to be achieved by the Bill? We must strike a balance between effective leadership and co-ordination in the fight against organised crime, and

local accountability—two principles that inevitably involve tension, but whose importance was acknowledged by the Home Secretary.
Given the existence of police authorities in the new form determined by the Home Secretary, I am slightly puzzled by their exclusion to date from consultation on the Bill. I know that the police authorities have offered their co-operation, and that, like us, they want strong legislation that is supported in all quarters; I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will involve them as debate on the Bill continues.
The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 maintains the underlying concept of the police service as a local responsibility, but provides that it should also deal with serious offences that transcend regional boundaries. That is what we are discussing today. I hope that the Home Secretary will allow representatives of police authorities to be involved in discussions on matters on which concern has been expressed today by hon. Members on both sides of the House—in other words, to take part in the debate about the best way in which to achieve the Government's objectives, and to deal with such issues as structure, accountability, the definition of organised crime and the measurement of performance standards in an area of joint responsibility.
Listening to the views of experts from a variety of countries at an international conference on organised crime not long ago, I was particularly impressed by the way in which organised crime differs in different countries, notwithstanding the international element in serious crime. In the past we have tended to think of sinister monolithic organisations, but to a great extent organised crime is a market in which the entrepreneurs flourish by taking opportunities that are there for the taking. It is important to design our system of law enforcement and intelligence in a way that denies opportunity in the specific conditions of the United Kingdom, and to resist expansion into the UK market by those who have succeeded elsewhere.
There are no simple solutions. We need to retain the basic values of the British police, and local accountability, while providing national co-ordination and leadership by means of the right systems and structures.
There has been extensive debate about whether there should be a single national police agency—an expanded NCIS or a new agency—to undertake national and international inquiries, or to co-ordinate the input of agencies, including customs, as well as the police and security services. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spoke of the need to grasp that nettle; I hope that the Home Secretary will do so quickly, and in the same spirit of co-operation and search for consensus that characterised the speeches from both Front Benches today. There are reservations about the structure and resourcing of the NCIS and its accountability, some of which were acknowledged by the Home Secretary. It is important that the Home Secretary and Parliament should lay down clear tasks for the national agency.
The Bill deals with a narrow but significant point. There is an increasing belief that, following the end of the cold war, the resources of the security services should be used in the fight against organised crime at national and international level. The Bill gives statutory authority for that—we accept the principle—but it contains little detail, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House


have pointed out. It does not clearly provide for the systems that are needed to provide accountability, transparency, control, supervision and discipline, and to deal with complaints.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—spoke with passion about the history of the subject, and the importance of checks and balances. The same issues have been raised by the Committee that the House established to study the issues, which has reported under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Several chief constables and senior police officers have also expressed that opinion over recent weeks.
In introducing the debate, the Home Secretary explained that his purpose in having a wide-ranging but simple Bill was to obtain maximum flexibility and avoid spurious legal challenges that would allow the guilty to walk free. Although I agree with him on that purpose, Parliament must be precise on the powers that it gives and the purposes for which they are to be exercised. The systems to which I referred are in place for the police and those issues must be clarified in respect of joint operations or circumstances in which the security services act in support of the police.
The Home Secretary had fuelled expectation that he would set out his approach to those issues in the debate and confirm that the police will task the Security Service to act in support of those inquiries. The verb "to task" is a rather inelegant term. Although it is commonly understood and familiar in police service jargon, it is less precise in normal usage of the English language and it has no established meaning in law. I am glad that the Home Secretary made his intentions clear and gave specific confirmation of who will task the security services, but he did not deal with the detail and it is not in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said in his opening comments, the Bill says that the Security Service will act in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime, but it does not say that the service will act in support of the police. It would be simple to say in clause 1 that the Security Service's function will be to act in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies in preventing and detecting serious crime. The Bill should provide detail on how accountability to the police will continue as the task that it is given at the beginning of the exercise is carried out.
The Bill refers to "serious crime", not organised crime, although the Home Secretary made it clear that organised crime is its specific target. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity in Committee to explore exactly what that means. One hon. Member referred to paedophiles and I share the Minister's view that we should not so define the Security Service's functions that an individual who is not part of an organised activity, although the activity is organised, can walk free. However, we must be specific in setting the limits of the activities and targets. For instance, would the three recent murders in Essex come within the ambit of organised crime? The Committee stage should he used as an opportunity to explore those definitions.
The Home Secretary stressed that the security services are not being given new powers. Ministers must satisfy the House, however, that the unqualified term "serious crime" is not too wide. I do not want to create a legal

minefield, or the possibility that the House's intentions will be frustrated, by being over-precise. I simply want to clarify the broad intentions of the phrase. The Home Secretary's sympathies and intentions appear to he entirely in accord with those principles, so I hope that we shall have cross-party co-operation in seeking an acceptable form of words. He offered to listen to our suggestions and he will have our active co-operation in seeking to square that important circle. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater stressed the need for the Standing Committee to resolve that issue. It will enhance the House's reputation if we do so in a positive atmosphere.
In the spirit of co-operation that has characterised this part of the debate, I have given notice of the issues that we must cover in forthcoming debates in Committee. My remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn reflect the spirit and content of the report to the Prime Minister by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which even the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills acknowledged as a useful report. It said:
Within that broad policy"—
which we welcome—
there are clearly some very important decisions to be taken on exactly what the Service's role will be, the structures within which it will work, its accountability and what has been termed by Chief police officers 'transparency'".
We welcome the fact that the Committee brought its report forward rapidly so that it might be, as the Committee noted,
available to those involved in developing the policy and drawing up the necessary legislative changes.
Some hon. Members have commented—they are correct—that there was a very short gap for consideration after the publication of the report. Indeed, we do not have a Government response to it—we hardly could have in the time. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government's response to the Committee's report will be available to the members of the Standing Committee when they debate the detail of the Bill.
Some of the important points in the report should be highlighted. For instance, the report mentions "agreement on principles", and I hope that the Minister will inform us whether those principles are accepted by the Government. I refer specifically to the items listed on page 2 of the report. The report states that the Committee
were told that preliminary agreement had been reached on a number of principle…as follows:
—primacy of responsibility for countering organised crime lies, and should remain with, the law enforcement organisations;
—in respect of intelligence work on organised crime, the Security Service should work through NCIS and the existing co-ordinating groups…It should not operate independently and unseen by those bodies;
—the Security Service should act in support of NCIS, Chief Officers of Police, Regional Crime Squads and HM Customs and Excise".
One important question is on whom accountability rests when there are local activities in a police force area. Does it lie on the NCIS or on the chief officer of police, whether a chief constable or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis?
The set of agreed principles referred to in the Committee's report also includes an important one that was touched on by a number of hon. Members:
the Security Service should bear the costs of its own contribution.


I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is the case, because it is important.
The Minister also needs to confirm the Committee's understanding on page 3 of report about the way in which the relevant agencies will be co-ordinated, both at operational level and at a policy level.
The report will be an important text for the Standing Committee when it considers the details of the Bill and what should be added to the Bill. If the type of safeguards that hon. Members on both sides of the House have requested and the reservations that have been expressed, again from both sides of the House, are not to be reflected in the Bill, they at least should he clear and in the public domain. The Standing Committee will have a more than usually important task because of the narrow and unconditional nature of the provisions in this short Bill. I hope that the Committee's debate will be constructive and helpful.
There are also elements in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs which need careful scrutiny. I welcome the fact that the Government's response to the report states:
The Government attaches particular importance to increasing our knowledge of the level and types of organised crime prevalent in the United Kingdom.
Often in politics, Ministers and Opposition representatives are expected to have absolute and universal knowledge, and never to admit that they do not know everything about the subject with which they are dealing. We actually know far too little about the realities of crime. The published crime statistics are not always illuminating about realities. The Home Secretary's recognition in the Government's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee is welcome and gives an appropriate basis for trying to improve the standard of knowledge within the country generally, within the Government and within the House; I welcome his remarks.
The Home Affairs Select Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Government's response to the Select Committee show the wide-ranging debate which is going on at present. Today's debate has been characterised by the willingness of the Home Secretary to open up debate constructively, and to seek both consensus on and effectiveness in the Bill. It has also been characterised by the positive response of the shadow Home Secretary to the Home Secretary's statement. I hope that the Minister will, tell us that that approach will be extended to law and order generally and to the Standing Committee proceedings.
I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead. The Home Secretary is greatly to be preferred when he offers co-operation and reason than when he is in his normal wolfish guise. I am, of course, simply quoting my hon. Friend's words.
The House has a duty to protect the individual citizen and the public at large against misuse of power; after all, that goes to the root of our existence. We also have a duty to ensure that the public are protected against the serious crime which threatens the very foundations of civil society, which we exist to protect. That is a local as well as a national issue, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) illustrated graphically, and most of us can think of similar examples in our constituencies.
I promise the Minister constructive debate in Committee, with the purpose of fashioning legislation that balances the two key principles. The Home Secretary invited suggestions and he has made it clear that the Committee has a real job to do. We will take up with enthusiasm the opportunity offered to us.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): This has been a useful and constructive debate marked by a number of informed contributions. This is one of the rare opportunities I have had of reading those words, which begin every ministerial winding-up speech, with a straight face. It actually has been an informed and well-tempered debate. I shall spare the blushes of the Opposition by not concentrating at length on the contributions by one or two Opposition Members, except to say that I suspect that Conservative central office will study the contributions by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and will find some useful nuggets for Conservative Party News for the next few months or, indeed, the next few years. There was sufficient material in there.
Apart from those rare contributions, there has been gratifying support from both sides of the House for the principle that the Security Service should be able to assist the law enforcement agencies in their work against serious crime. Almost everyone was agreed on the principles. The only area of disagreement was whether the wording in the Bill met the principles on which we all agree. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a powerful case in dealing with that point and I shall now deal with it likewise. In Committee, we shall explore some of the complex legal arguments that we are not able to explore on the Floor of the House tonight so that we can, I hope, satisfy all shades of opinion on both sides of the House that the Bill will do what we believe it ought to do.

Dr. Godman: As someone who is not likely to be invited to join the Committee, may I remind the Minister that, some five hours ago, I asked the Home Secretary a question about the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to clause 2? Can the Minister, five hours later, confirm that an application for a warrant submitted by Security Service personnel operating in Scotland will be determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland and not by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Maclean: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He made the point that the law states that a Secretary of State may sign such a warrant. In many cases, that could be the Home Secretary who has primary responsibility throughout the United Kingdom. However, it could be the Secretary of State for Scotland and it could be other Secretaries of State as appropriate. The House has sensibly phrased the legislation to permit warrants to be determined by a Secretary of State.
Many colleagues mentioned the threat from organised crime.

Mr. Rogers: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is inadvertently misleading the House. The Security Service Act 1989 does not give any Secretary of State the power


to sign a warrant. It refers specifically to "the Secretary of State" and, under the terms of the Bill, that is the Home Secretary.

Mr. Maclean: I believe that, if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will say that I was not inadvertently misleading the House. I said that the Home Secretary in many cases would be the lead authority to deal with those warrants, but it could be that the legislation does speak about the Secretary of State and there may be occasions—one may wish to explore some in Committee—when the Scottish Secretary may be the appropriate authority.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister give way briefly on that point?

Mr. Maclean: No; we have gone through that point. It is a small, technical point.

Dr. Godman: No, it is not.

Mr. Maclean: Having served on many Committees and Scottish Committees with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I am very sensitive to the argument that he makes about the Scottish legal system and some of the wonderful and unique institutions in Scotland, including the police service, but I believe that matter is more deserving of Committee than of the 15 minutes that I have left tonight.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for confirming from the Opposition Benches his strongly held and, I believe, knowledgeable opinion, now that he serves on the Intelligence and Security Committee, that there is a genuine threat from serious and organised crime. That was described eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). It was confirmed by the hon. Member for Rhondda, in a very telling speech. The Home Affairs Select Committee described it as a cause for serious concern, and we are taking measures on an international front to tackle that threat.
The United Kingdom has not suffered as much damage at the hands of organised crime as have many countries. No one has said that that is a cause for complacency—it is not the Government's opinion—but it is a reason for me to echo the tributes that were paid to the sterling efforts of all our law enforcement agencies. Credit is also due to our financial institutions and public bodies.
To tackle the threat of organised crime from former communist countries in eastern Europe, we continue to develop closer co-operation with Governments and law enforcement agencies in central and eastern Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union. We do so both bilaterally and in conjunction with our European Union partners.
Under the Home Office overseas drugs-related assistance programme, the countries of eastern Europe are priority targets for law enforcement equipment and training. We have given £4.6 million in aid to the region in the past three years, including support for the United Nations international drug control programme, reflecting its increasing importance as a transit route for heroin bound for the UK.
The police are also working with their counterparts and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is providing drug law enforcement training and technical assistance in those countries and other—drug sources and transit countries.
Key aims for all that work are improved intelligence and improved co-ordination of efforts among a variety of agencies. Those aims are central to the Bill before us and central to our efforts to tackle the menace of organised crime.
I believe that the hon. Member for Hillhead said that everyone who has spoken so far has claimed that the Bill is a panacea. No one claimed that; the Opposition did not and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not. No hon. Member who spoke has claimed that the Bill is a marvellous panacea for all the problems of organised crime and drug trafficking in towns and cities. We have said—it was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to exaggerate those comments—that the Bill makes a sensible and important contribution to the battle against organised crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), in an important speech, asked, as did other hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—what the catalyst was for the legislation and why it was being introduced. The answer is that we have identified that in the Security Service there are some skills, especially analytical skills, and it has some resources and, God willing, if Northern Ireland continues in its present course, it may have some capacity to contribute to the battle. I simply say to the House, if there are those skills, if there is that capacity, we should all be pretty daft to look that gift horse in the mouth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked what applications had been received by the Security Service tribunal. I can tell him that, in the past five years, 187 applications have been received and have been determined. No determination has been made in favour of a complainant, which does not imply that everything is perfect, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) suggested. It simply means that the independent investigators on the Security Service tribunal have concluded that the service behaved properly in respect of the 187 people who complained.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of our concerns about the performance of the tribunal stems from the fact that it is not empowered to investigate anything relating to any file initiated before November 1989? Under the current legislation, therefore, if an investigation is initiated which relates to a person who was on file before then, the tribunal will say that the case cannot be investigated. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that that is the central flaw in the current arrangements?

Mr. Maclean: I recognise the facts that my hon. Friend has stated, but not that they constitute a central flaw in the arrangements. I repeat that the tribunal did not find in favour of any of the 187 complainants. The House set up the arrangements and has, I believe, generally been satisfied with them. They are a form of redress that did not exist before.
I come next to an extremely important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in his excellent speech. I set out the following facts in order to satisfy some of the demands made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth


(Mr. Michael). I refer to the principles agreed and signed up to by the police and the Security Service. They are referred to in the ISC report as the principles that will govern the service's work against organised crime. I am happy to put them in the public domain tonight and to confirm them.
First, the law enforcement agencies and the Security Service have agreed that primacy of responsibility for countering organised crime lies, and should remain with, the law enforcement agencies. Secondly, the Security Service will be tasked through the NCIS and the relevant co-ordinating groups and will act in support of the NCIS, the chief officers of police, the regional crime squads and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Thirdly, the Security Service's contributions will be co-ordinated through the NCIS and existing structures; it will not operate independently. Fourthly, the Security Service will be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. Finally, the costs of the Security Service's involvement will be borne by the Security Service. I hope that these facts provide the reassurance that many hon. Members on both sides have asked for.

Mr. Rogers: It is all very well to talk about the NCIS tasking the Security Service, but the problem is that the NCIS itself does not have a properly structured relationship with operational police forces. It is an intelligence-gathering agency. We have expressed strong reservations about the Bill, and I have spoken about putting the cart before the horse, because until the operational aspects of the police in respect of organised crime are sorted out, the resources of the Security Service are likely to be dissipated.

Mr. Maclean: I cannot agree. The provisions of the Bill form a discrete area of law. We are not extending the powers of the Security Service; we are permitting it to operate in a slightly different field. It is possible to do so without defining in the Bill all the details to do with the NCIS, its evolving relationship with the police, and the development of a national crime squad. We intend to deal with such matters next year if we possibly can, but the simple measures that we are debating tonight do not depend on them.
I look forward to a constructive Standing Committee in which we can explore the legal consequences of using alternative wordings such as "serious" or "organised", or "organised and/or serious" and so on. Having considered those, there are potentially serious legal consequences—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for raising them—if the guilty go free because they have exploited a technicality as we in Parliament have not used the correct word. We intend carefully to explore those matters. If we can find a word that allows the House to feel that it has all the control over the Security Service that it needs and that, at the same time, does not allow unscrupulous lawyers to undermine cases, the Government will be perfectly satisfied.
We believe that the phraseology that we have at present satisfies that need. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we believe that the term
in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime
achieves the aims on which we are all agreed. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is shaking his head. We do not want to inhibit the service's operational

effectiveness. There is a danger that we could create a position where the service's activities would be open to endless legal challenge on the question of whether every individual action was demonstrably taken in support of a law enforcement agency, if that were in the Bill, but we shall explore that matter.
I was asked about evidence in court. Of course, the Security Service has been gearing up to give evidence in court and has been doing so. Since it has had some responsibility and has taken the lead in combating Irish terrorism on the mainland, it has worked closely and well with the police. It has learnt that, if it is to give evidence in court, it must have a police officer's skills and learn the rules of evidence. The service is conscious of the fact that, if it is to get into the court domain, much of the information that it may collect will have to satisfy the rules of the laws of evidence. It is also aware of that when it comes to giving evidence in court.
We expect that, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the bulk of the service's work will be in using its exceptionally good analytical skills. We expect that much of it will be back-up work to the police, providing information having been tasked by the NCIS, but if Security Service officers are required to give evidence in court, they must have those skills.
A balance will have to be struck as to the secrecy that will have to be maintained, and the amount of openness that will be required in court. If the balance comes down on the side of secrecy, those officers may not be able to give evidence, which may mean that the case may not proceed, but that is no different from the position in some of the regional crime squads or in the ordinary police, where we have problems on disclosure. That is why we are taking action on disclosure.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked about the national police squad and whether we should go for one squad or two. As the Home Secretary said, we are working through the implications of the new arrangements with the Association of Chief Police Officers. A range of possible operational models exists, but this sector will always involve co-ordination of different responsibilities. Even if we had one squad, some people would do the intelligence bit and some the operational bit. Even if there were two, there would have to be co-operation.
We do not rule out the possibility of one agency performing both intelligence-gathering and investigative functions, but no one organisation can tackle organised crime alone and I would not want to risk losing the particular strengths that the NCIS has developed in its present more specialised role. We are, however, carefully considering all those issues and I note the hon. Gentleman's marginal preference for one national squad.
The House should be in no doubt that organised crime is a menace that needs to be tackled. Organised criminal activity plays a substantial part in criminal life in this country. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in opening the debate, the law enforcement agencies have enjoyed some notable successes in their efforts against crime. There is no room for complacency. We now need to move forward and to do more.
The Security Service has particular skills and expertise. Years of having to deal with terrorist groups has given it considerable expertise in infiltrating hostile groups and in gathering and analysing intelligence. Those are precisely the skills that can be useful in attempting to foil organized


criminal groups. It would be wrong to deny ourselves the opportunity to put such skills at the disposal of the law enforcement agencies so that they may be used in the prevention and detection of serious crime.
The Bill will be widely welcomed outside the House. It has been warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, with a few exceptions. I believe that the British people will be pleased to learn that we are bringing in extra skilled players to support the law enforcement agencies in their work against crime. The only people who will not welcome the Bill are the criminals who will see that the Bill, together with the package of measures against organised crime to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred, is an indication of the Government's firm determination to maintain the attack against organised crime. The Bill is an excellent plank in our strategy against organised crime and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SECURITY SERVICE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Security Service Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under the Security Service Act 1989— [Mr. Maclean.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Delegated Legislation

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
That Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Keith Mans, Dr John Reid, Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Peter Viggers be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Orders of the Day — Quarrying

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

10 pm

Mr. Chris Davies: (Littleborough and Saddleworth): I am grateful to Madam Speaker for granting me the debate.
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider the issue I am about to put to him. A quarry, which had been worked for 120 years, devastating the landscape and creating a massive and ugly scar on the hillside, finally closed in 1980. For the residents of Newhey, an urban village of more than 1,000 homes on the edge of Rochdale, its closure can hardly have come a moment too soon.
Over the past 15 years that quarry has gradually been taken over by vegetation and many new residents have moved into the village, never thinking for a moment that the disused quarry was ever likely to reopen. They certainly never dreamt that it would be turned into a super-quarry, to be excavated far below the level of water table, not simply scarring the hillside but taking it away entirely. It is not surprising that over that period they had few fears. After the quarry closed, the land that it occupied was included within Rochdale council's green belt. It was so important and so protected that just 19 months ago, when the Secretary of State for the Environment considered the report of his inspector into an application to build an hotel on the quarry site, he refused planning permission.
It is worth noting some of the comments made by the inspector. He said that as the quarry had remained closed throughout the 1980s, a period, he said, of high demand, on the balance of probability it was unlikely to resume operations. He said that the arguments put forward by the applicants were not sufficient to overcome the general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. He recommended that if the Secretary of State was mindful to approve the application, he should impose conditions to ensure that consents relating to mineral extraction on the site should not be implemented.
Any reasonable person could be forgiven for thinking that this was a prime example of an ex-quarry—one which would never be worked again.
Why is it that the residents of Newhey are now facing the real prospect that the quarry is not only to be reopened but to be massively extended? What the residents here and in many other locations did not appreciate was that by trying to tidy up the problem of old mining permissions, the Government blundered into Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory, switched on the electricity and woke up the monster.
An interim development order was granted for Newhey quarry in 1947, at a time when wartime priorities for development took rather more precedence over the planning considerations we have today. Planning permissions were granted which would not be granted under more recent legislation. In 1991 the Government announced that the holders of such permissions had to apply for re-registration by March 1992 or the permission would cease to have effect. That woke up a lot of people. The result of that announcement was to transform what

in some cases was land assumed to have relatively little commercial value—the quarries had closed, had never been worked or the IDO records were not clear and contained potential conflicts—into land which came attached to a legal piece of paper which proclaimed it as potentially worth a great deal of money.
In addition, the Department announced that once an application had been approved, owners would have just 12 months to make further applications to determine the operating and restoration conditions. The developers were first given a good shaking then, instead of the land being kept as an asset value and perhaps used as collateral or as a trading commodity, new quarrying schemes began to appear on the drawing board and take on a life of their own.
I understand from the Wildlife Trust that planning permissions granted under IDOs have been claimed at 652 sites in England and Wales, many of which have never been developed to any extent and quite a few of which are in countryside of importance to nature conservation. The list includes 87 sites in areas of outstanding natural beauty and many others that incorporate land designated as sites of special scientific interest.
The Government have provided no special protection. On the contrary, in dealing with the oldest of mining permissions they said:
Applications for registration of IDO permissions must be determined on the evidence of the case and not on the perceived planning merits of the development.
The fact that over a period of 50 years local conditions, as well as public attitudes, may have changed, has made not a jot of difference.
I understand that many local authorities were not even aware of the existence of many of the permissions, so old are they, and so have not made any reference to them in their development plans. Suddenly, a new housing estate or an area designated for protection as green belt finds that a new quarry may appear in its midst. In effect, that is what has happened in Newhey. The site owners applied to re-register the IDO permission. Despite the opposition of all parties on Rochdale council, their claims were upheld and approved by the Secretary of State. That is not surprising, given the provisos built into the requirements.
Certainly, the land owners have rights. Given the comments of the planning inspector that I cited earlier, a few years ago the owners may not have realised that they held such a financial asset—but they certainly do now. In his attempt to clean up old procedures, I fear that the Secretary of State has made the owners' rights very clear indeed. What rights do the local residents have? Above all, what rights of objection do they possess? The answer is that they have hardly any rights worth having. Their community has no real protection against a development to which it is strongly and almost unanimously opposed.
No doubt the Secretary of State would argue that by tidying up the old permissions he has ensured that the quarry can be worked only after it has secured planning permission from the local authority, which will impose a requirement of modern operating conditions. However, a quarry such as this in a location such as this would not have been granted planning permission in the first place if the application were fresh and original. The local authority would have had the strongest objections to it and I have no doubt that a succession of guidance papers


produced by the DOE over the years would have given strength to its arm and ample support for the objections of residents.
In practice, the local authority does not have the right to take the commonsense approach that would gain the approval of most residents—that is, simply to refuse planning permission. It can impose conditions on the working of the quarry, but only provided that they do not fundamentally affect the economic viability of the operation. It must take a reasonable approach. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable for work to start at 6.30 am? It may be in some locations, but the location that I am discussing is in the heart of Newhey. I well know that many residents find it entirely unreasonable.
The requirement imposed upon it put the local authority in a cleft stick. It wants to impose planning conditions that will genuinely protect the interests of local residents—but if it goes too far, it risks throwing the baby out with the bath water, of the applicants appealing and of no effective restrictions on quarry operations surviving. In effect, the planning authority has been stripped of all real powers. Mineral planning authorities have powers to change out-of-date permissions, but as they can do so only by paying substantial compensation to operators, it is not a feasible option.
The Minister may know that back in 1976 the Stevens committee pointed out that the mineral extraction industry had special characteristics and it recommended that it should have to accept any reasonable additional costs arising from the modernisation of old mineral permissions. In other words, a permission granted in the 1940s should not necessarily be considered a licence for everlasting life.
It is a shame that the Government did not take on board more of those points when they started the process of reviewing the interim development orders four years ago. Consideration should perhaps have been given to revoking some of the IDO permissions put before them. One must remember that the natural environment when the IDO permissions were granted was given much less priority than it is today. With advanced technology, the scale of operations now envisaged in many of the quarries may be vastly greater than was ever originally predicted.
In cases such as Newhey, a quarry which was in operation for 30 years after the IDO permission was granted and for almost 100 years before that, surely no one could argue that the original owners had not recouped their investment many times over.
As time moves on, it is surely reasonable to suggest that the interests of local communities should be given priority. As part of the process of modernising permissions, the Government should issue guidance to local authorities indicating the circumstances in which environmental and other considerations may be allowed to override the interests of a quarry operator.
The local authority should also have clearly defined rights to impose upper limits on the rate of output from such quarrying sites, which, as I pointed out, may be vastly increased because of the developments in technology and transport over the past 50 years and the new ways in which stone can be moved from quarry sites across the country.
Strengthening of the regulatory powers of planning authorities may affect the economic basis of some quarry operations. So be it. The owners of land for which mineral

working rights exist for 50 years must assume and expect that changes in the approach taken by Governments over the years will affect their operations and the value of their asset. That is the risk that they take.
Perhaps it will be argued that the imposition of new conditions may conflict with the property rights of quarry owners. That is no more effective an argument than to say, for example, that if Parliament imposed restrictions on sulphur dioxide pollution from power stations, it would take away the rights of National Power—or ICI in the case of a chemical plant—to profit excessively from operations which pollute the air.
The principle that what was acceptable in 1947 will still be acceptable almost a century later—that is how long these permissions go on—simply cannot be sustained. It is not reasonable that owners should be able to demand excessive compensation for the loss in value of sites that were only given real value in the first place in some cases by a stroke of a Secretary of State's pen just a year or two ago.
The Government have acted in recent years to modernise old permissions and I do not suggest that they set out with anything other than the best of intentions. But the method adopted ignored the question of whether permission for the re-working of those old sites should be given at all. No one now would be able to gain permission to open a quarry so close to a major residential community as that in Newhey. Equally, it should not be possible to gain permission to reopen a closed quarry that belongs to another time and another age. That may have serious effects upon a local community. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action the Government will take to strengthen the rights of local residents and planning authorities in such cases.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) is new to the House. It is therefore understandable that he is perhaps unaware that I cannot give answers on a specific case. I hope that he will take that into account.
The hon. Gentleman has also failed to recognise the importance to this country of quarrying, mining and minerals—most obviously the energy minerals of coal, oil and gas. Those industries form a vital part of our economy. There are some 2,500 mineral workings in the United Kingdom; 900 sand and gravel pits; 500 hard rock and sandstone quarries; and 275 coal workings. In 1993, they were worth £16 billion to the United Kingdom, and they cannot be ignored. They also help to offset a deficit in our balance of payments which would occur if we had to import those minerals from elsewhere.
The mineral extraction industries also help to reduce our unemployment rate, because 36,000 people are employed in such industries. I am excluding those who work in offshore oil and gas extraction, which employs 34,000 people.
We accept that, in many cases, taking minerals out of the ground inevitably causes disruption. There can, however, be long-term benefits. It is worth pondering on that. Some of the sites have been subject to dramatic improvements, particularly where old sites have been cleaned up and brought back into a state of reasonable order.
Ultimately, it is an obvious geological fact that minerals can be worked only where they are found. That limits the choice of locations for extraction. Modern quarrying is a major industrial activity, and must often take place in what would otherwise be quiet rural areas. Government, industry and environmental organisations have done much to develop a broad and deep understanding of the effects of such quarrying, and how we can reduce them.
Much research has been undertaken into noise, dust, blasting, and the associated traffic. The aim, which to a large degree has been met, is to offer further advice to planning authorities, which must authorise the quarrying and control it through the conditions imposed on planning permissions. It is in their hands.
It is important to recognise that the industry has realised that it must improve its environmental performance, and it has taken dramatic and positive steps to do so. Our experience shows that the most successful approach is one based on co-operation between the industries, the mineral planning authorities and the local communities; and that happens. A blast such as that which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman does not necessarily contribute to that co-operation.
The task of granting mineral planning permissions and monitoring how those sites are worked throughout their lives, and then restored, is a right of local government. It is something for it to undertake. The Government have a role; they set the right framework.
I accept that, historically, mineral extraction has been a significant cause of dereliction, but we have moved on since then. We now have an accepted policy that the land which is worked for minerals is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity to a high standard and for a beneficial use. Excellent results are being achieved, although I shall not go into them, because there is insufficient time to do so.
Many planning permissions were, as has been said, issued in the past. Many of those permissions are still being worked. The standards that we expect to be achieved on those sites are those that we would set today. That is why further action has been take in that sphere during the past five years.
The first step has been to recognise that the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 was not working as well as had been intended. In 1991, we brought in the Planning and Compensation Act. We legislated to reform interim development order permissions—IDOs, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The earliest remaining mineral permissions in Great Britain date from 1943 to 1948. Those permissions had first to be registered with the local planning authority, and the operator or landowner then had to submit to the planning authority an updated scheme of working, restorations and conditions, which worked well.
The Environment Act 1995 huilt on that earlier success, and made provision for similar reforms to deal with old mineral permissions. by which I mean permissions granted between 1948 and 1982. In addition, it put into place a system to review all mineral permissions, regardless of their date, periodically thereafter.
The first step in the new reforms is for local mineral planning authorities to publish by 31 January lists of all dormant and active phase I and phase II mineral sites in

their areas that require to be reviewed. For active phase I sites, the list must specify the date by which an application for an approval of new conditions must be submitted to the mineral planning authority.
The definition of what constitutes a dormant site, which has been mentioned in the debate, is clear in the Act. Retrospectively, the Act defines as dormant mineral planning permissions for sites where there has been no substantial working between 22 February 1982 and 6 June 1995. Should a mineral planning authority determine that a site is dormant, it is then up to that authority to take enforcement action in the usual way against any unlawful working.
Operators have no appeal against a mineral planning authority's classifying a site as dormant, except to seek a judicial review. However, classifying a site as dormant does not annul the permission. It can be reactivated at any time, provided that the operator can comply with full modern conditions for the site's working and restoration. Those conditions do not attract compensation.
The Environment Act also provides for periodic reviews at 15-year intervals of all mineral permissions, irrespective of the date when they were granted, to ensure that they are kept up to date.
I turn now to the specific issue of reopening mineral workings. Sites can suspend operations for a number of reasons—market conditions, unexpected geological problems, rationalisation and so on. Suspension of working does not in itself mean that operations should not be allowed to recommence when circumstances improve, or when temporary problems have been overcome, provided that they are carried out in accordance with the terms of the planning permission.
Where a mineral planning authority believes that a permission should not continue, it already has the powers to revoke or discontinue it, but it must pay compensation to any person with an interest in the land or minerals who suffers loss or damage. We have made it clear that the Government do not believe that it would be right to revoke without compensation planning permissions that have been validly granted and validly held.
However, as I have already said, we recognise that there is a particular problem with older planning permissions when working has been suspended for many years, and the terms of the original planning permission may have been overtaken by higher environmental expectations and improved standards. That is why, for the oldest permissions—the interim development orders, or IDOs—the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 specified that sites that had not been worked to any substantial extent in the two years ending on 1 April 1979 could not restart until full modern operating and restoration conditions had been approved by the mineral planning authority. Similarly, the 1995 Act provides that for pre-1982 sites where no substantial working has been carried out between 1982 and 1995, working cannot restart without full modern conditions. In neither case is any compensation payable.
Those are tough requirements, and they will ensure that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without a full consideration of all the issues, and the imposition of stringent modern planning conditions.

Mr. Chris Davies: The Minister rightly said that I had given him a local example. I would not expect him to respond in detail to that—although I tried to use the example of Newhey as an illustration of the wider problem. He referred at length to the new Environment Act 1995, which has already been helpful in some cases in Rochdale borough—but the IDO problem is my main concern.
Although the introduction of modern planning conditions may be helpful in some instances, it does not deal with the problem caused by a quarry such as that in Newhey—there are probably others on many sites throughout the country—which simply would not be given planning permission in the first place if there were a fresh application. The site is a dead quarry, 150 years old, which is now being brought back to life. Does the

Minister acknowledge the need for stronger powers for local authorities to recognise the changed circumstances in which such a quarry is now expected to operate?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is underrating the powers of the local mineral authority. The authority can impose strict environmental standards under the new legislation and the various guidance notes. I repeat that I cannot refer to a particular case, but the powers in the hands of the planning authority are considerable. I would like the hon. Gentleman to ponder on that before he comes back and raises the matter, as I suspect he will in a written form at the first opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.